CAR_Public/160217.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, February 17, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 34


                            Headlines


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
ALAN ARMSTRONG: SBRS Challenges Merger of Williams and ETE
AMERICA'S BEST: Violates FLSA Act, "O'Neal" Suit Claims
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Court Vacates $4MM Settlement Approval Order
ANDREU & ASSOCIATES: "Povedo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA

ANTHEM: "Reid" Files Suit Over Denied Coverage
APOLLO EDUCATION: Defending Kentucky Wage & Hour Suit
APOLLO EDUCATION: District Court Struck Settlement Objection
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Snowmobiles Due to Injury Risk
ASSET MANAGEMENT: Order Confirming Arbitration Award Reversed

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Firemen's Suit Seeks to Block NYCB Merger
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Lowinger" Suit Seeks to Block NYCB Merger
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Raul" Suit Seeks to Block NYCB Merger
AUSTRALIA: More Than 200 Sailors Join Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Palm Island Man Sues Over Discriminatory Riot Arrests

BANK OF AMERICA: "Flewellen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
BG GROUP: "Ayden" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Pay
BURBERRY: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Price Tags
CE NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Fan Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
CHAMPION BRANDS: "Jones" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA

CINTAS CORP: Settled Gender Bias Suit for Immaterial Amount
CLASSIC CHARACTERS: Recalls Infant Elf Booties
CLAYTON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS: "Bynum" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CON-WAY INC: Defending Stockholder Suit over XPO Merger
CON-WAY INC: Continues to Defend California Wage and Hour

CONAIR CORP: Bids to Certify or Decertify Due March 7
CRESCENT POINT: Recalls Propane (LP) Gas Due to Burn Hazard
DE MAIZ TORTILLERIA: Violates FLSA, "Hernandez" Suit Claims
DKL VENTURES: "Collins" Suit Seeks Wages & Legal Remedies
DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls Toy Trucks Due to Fire & Burn Hazards

DRAFTKINGS INC: "Pope" Sues Over Illegal Sports Betting
EASTHILL GROUP: Recalls Multi-function Power Packs
EMC CORP: "Pancake" Suit Seeks to Enjoin EMC and Denali Merger
EMI GROUP: 9th Circuit Revives "Bozzio" Case
FALCON DRILLING: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA

FANDUEL INC: "Giametta" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
FITBIT INC: Violates Securities Act of 1933, "Robb" Suit Claims
FLEET LEASE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Sales Practices
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Facing Class Suit over FracMax(R) Software
FRAL SERVICES: Violates FLSA and NJWHL, "Franco" Suit Claims

FREEMAN DECORATING: Utility Cost Suit Asserts UCL Violation
GALARDI SOUTH: Renewed Bid for Certification Granted in Part
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Violates Clayton Act, Spokane Suit Claims
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Suez Water Suit Alleges Alum Price-Fixing
HAKKASAN HOLDINGS: Judge Wants "Johnson" Tip Pooling Case Amended

HAMILTON CENTER: Indiana Judge Tosses "Malone" Suit
HEAD USA: Recalls Ski and Snowboard Helmets Due to Injury Risk
HOME DEPOT: "Ramos" Suit Seeks Civil Penalties Under Labor Code
ICON CABLE: "Otgonbileg" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Ceiling Lamps Due to Laceration Risk

J-W WIRELINE CO: "Tindell" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
JOHNSON OUTDOORS: Recalls Dive Computers Due to Injury Risk
KDF AUTOMOTIVE: Ruling Vacated Due to Latest Case Law Decision
KHS AMERICA: Recalls Children's Musical Instrument Due to Lead
LANE BRYANT: Violates Cal. Labor Code, "Hatcher" Suit Claims

LIBERTY BROADBAND: "Cohen" Class Action Dismissed
LIONS GATE: Consolidated Securities Action Dismissed
LOUISIANA CLEANING SYSTEMS: "French" Suit Seeks Wage & OT Pay
LTD FINANCIAL: Court Accepts Notice of Supplemental Authority
LTD RESTAURANT: "Lozano" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay

LUTRON ELECTRONICS: Recalls 30,000 Roller Shades
LVNV FUNDING: Judge Keeps Class Cert. Ruling in "Mitchell"
LYFT: Judge to Hear Class Action Settlement Motion on Feb. 18
M&T BANK: Hudson City Violated Securities Laws, Suit Alleges
MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE: Settlement in "Karic" Wins Initial Approval

MDL 1917: Video Display Files Claim in CRT Litigation
MESSA & ASSOCIATES: "Vollmer" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
MICHIGAN: Judge Narrows Claims in "Unan" Suit vs. Health Dept
MICROSOFT CORP: Recalls AC Power Cords Due to Shock Hazards
MISTRAS GROUP: Defending Employee Class Suits in California

MJ BAGEL INC: "Camas" Suit Seeks Damages, Minimum & OT Wages
MOL AMERICA: Elite Logistics Suit Fails to Obtain Class Status
MONEYGRAM: Scam Victims to Get Compensation Under $13M Settlement
MOTELS MISSION: Violates Cal Labor Code, "Lacanlale" Suit Claims
NETWORK TELEPHONE: 9th Cir. Affirms District Court's Denial

NORTHERN MARIANA: Judge Balks at Governor's Inciting Words
NUNA BABY: Recalls High Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
NY STATE CATHOLIC HEALTH: Violates GOL, "Halpern" Suit Claims
ORAN CORP: "Bastista" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
PACIFIC GATEWAY: $800,000 Deal Has Initial OK; June 6 Hearing Set

PANDA RESTAURANT: Violates Unruh Act, "Bennett" Suit Claims
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Brazilian Group's Case Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Brazil Public Prosecutor's Appeal Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing in "Letourneau" Appeal Set
PHILIP MORRIS: Hearing for Merits Appeal in "Blais" Set for Nov.

PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking & Health Class Suits Pending at Dec. 31
PHILIP MORRIS: Motions Pending in "Adams" Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Case in Canada Remains Inactive
PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Case in Canada Remains Inactive
PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Case in Canada Remains Inactive

PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Class Action Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: "Bourassa" Class Action Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: "Jacklin" Class Action Still Pending
PIER 1: Recalls Swivel Dining Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
PRATT AND WHITNEY: Court Trims Claims in "Rosenstein" Suit

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Avila" Seeks Injunctive Relief Under FLSA
RENTRAK CORP: Files Supplemental Disclosures on Merger
RINO INTERNATIONAL: Claims Against Frazer Frost Dismissed
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Recalls Dirt Devil(R) Vacuums
RUAN TRANSPORTATON: "Shaw" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

SALT & PEPPER DINER: Fails to Pay Wages, "Escutia" Suit Claims
SCHOLARSHIP STORAGE: Misclassification Case Wins Class Status
SELECTION MANAGEMENT: At Odds with Insurer Over Class Suit Cost
SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Named in Class Suit
SOCAL EDISON: Cal. App. Upholds Order Sustaining Demurrer

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: "Acevedo" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA & MMWA
SRIPRAPHAI THAI: Violates NY Labor Law, "Romero" Suit Claims
SST ENERGY: "Beall" FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
STILLWATER INSURANCE: "Tortajada" Sues for Breach of Contract
SUPERVALU INC: Class Suit Stayed Pending Case v. IOS Officers

SUPERVALU INC: Class Certification Appeal Pending in 8th Circuit
SUPERVALU INC: Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Dismissed
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces Beam's Suit Over Sherman Act Violation
TOPPERS INT'L: "Burnell" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT, Tips
TOYODA GOSEI: "VITEC" Suit Alleges Auto Hose Price Fixing

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Sees No Rare Circumstances to Stay Suit
UNITED BANK CARD: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
UNITED SERVICES: 17 Attys to Attend Feb. 18 Legal Ethics Hearing
US VISION INC: Violates TCPA, Golden Law Offices Suit Claims
USAA: Judge Holmes Gives Preview of Class Action Hearing

VIMO INC: Faces "Goldberg" Suit Over TCPA Violation
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: "Graiser" Suit Remanded to State Court
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dutch Settlement Foundation to Resolve Claims
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Wants "Ford" Class Action Dismissed
WARE STATE PRISON: Inmates' Motion to Certify Class Denied

WAUSAU PAPER: MOU Reached in Class Suit Related to SCA Merger
WELLTEC INC: "Rychorcewicz" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
WHIRLPOOL: Settles Class Action Over Defective Dishwasher
WWRD US: Recalls Peter Rabbit Baby Rattles Due to Choking Hazard

* Supreme Court Set to Tackle 6 Pending Cases This Year


                            *********


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey court was scheduled to conduct a hearing on Aeterna
Zentaris Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit on
January 19, 2016, the Company said in its Amendment No. 1 To Form
F-10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 12, 2016, that

"We and certain of our current and former officers are defendants
in a purported class-action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), brought on
behalf of shareholders of the Company. The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements
made by the defendants between April 2, 2012 and November 6, 2014,
or the Class Period, regarding the safety and efficacy of
Macrilen(TM), a product we developed for use in the diagnosis of
AGHD, and the prospects for the approval of the Company's NDA for
the product by the FDA. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class
comprised of purchasers of our Common Shares during the Class
Period and seek damages, costs and expenses and such other relief
as determined by the Court," the Company said.

On September 14, 2015, the Court dismissed the lawsuit stating
that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim, but granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend. On October 14, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint against the Company.

"We will seek to have the lawsuit dismissed again as we believe
that the Second Amended Complaint also fails to state a claim. The
Court will conduct a hearing on our motion to dismiss on January
19, 2016," the Company said.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to
continue to defend this lawsuit vigorously, we cannot predict the
outcome. Furthermore, we may, from time to time, be parties to
other litigation in the normal course of business. Monitoring and
defending against legal actions, whether or not meritorious, is
time-consuming for our management and detracts from our ability to
fully focus our internal resources on our business activities. In
addition, legal fees and costs incurred in connection with such
activities may be significant and we could, in the future, be
subject to judgments or enter into settlements of claims for
significant monetary damages. A decision adverse to our interests
could result in the payment of substantial damages and could have
a material adverse effect on our cash flow, results of operations
and financial position," the Company added.


ALAN ARMSTRONG: SBRS Challenges Merger of Williams and ETE
----------------------------------------------------------
State-Boston Retirement System and City of Orlando Police Pension
Fund, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders of The Williams Companies, Inc., the Plaintiffs, v.
Alan S. Armstrong, Frank T. Macinnis, Joseph R. Cleveland,
Kathleen B. Cooper, John A. Hagg, Juanita H. Hinshaw, Ralph Izzo,
Eric Mandelblatt, Keith A. Meister, Steven W. Nance, Murray D.
Smith, Janice D. Stoney, and Laura A. Sugg, the Defendants, Case
No. 58342857 (Del. Chancery Ct., December 24, 2015), seeks to
recover injunctive relief, damages, or other relief in connection
with proposed sales of control over Williams to Energy Transfer
Equity (ETE) as announced on September 28, 2015, pursuant to an
agreement and plan of merger.

The stockholder class action arises from the proposed sale of
control over a public corporation, Williams, to a newly formed
limited partnership, ETC, in a transaction valued at $37 billion.

Alan S. Armstrong became president and chief executive officer of
Williams in January 2011. Previously, he served as president of
Williams' midstream and olefins businesses in North America.
Additionally, Armstrong serves as chairman of the board and chief
executive officer for Williams Partners L.P., the master limited
partnership that owns most of Williams' gas pipeline and domestic
midstream assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine S. Azar, Esq.
          Ralph N. Sianni, Esq.
          Ryan Keating, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573 2540

               - and -

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
          Adam D. Hollander, Esq.
          John Vieland, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554 1400

               - and -

          Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq.
          KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
          7080 Northwest 4th Street
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 916 1202


AMERICA'S BEST: Violates FLSA Act, "O'Neal" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Deoncea O'Neal, and Ryan White, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. America's Best
Tire, LLC, Camelback Automotive Repair, LLC, America's Best Tire
Grand, LLC, America's Best Tire Glendale, LLC, America's Best Tire
203, LLC, America's Best Tire 101, LLC, America's Best Employment
Services, LLC, America's Best Wholesale Tire, LLC,
America's Best Tire Mesa, LLC, America's Best Transportation
Services, LLC, America's Best Tire Peoria, LLC, America's Best
Tire Buckeye, LLC, America's Best Tire Van Buren, LLC, America's
Best Wholesale Tire Tucson, LLC, America's Best Tire Wholesale
Tire LV, LLC, AZ Best Automotive, LLC, AZ Best Tire 4097, LLC,
Arizona Best Tire Services, LLC, AZ Best Tire 3902, LLC, AZ Best
Tire, LLC, AZ Best Tire 7048, LLC, AZ Best Tire 8334, LLC, Arizona
Best Mobile Tire Services, LLC, AZ Best Tire & Auto 1355, LLC, AZ
Best Tire 5201, LLC, (above are all Arizona limited liability
companies), Travis M. Dees and Jane Doe Dees, husband and wife,
Arizona residents, Andrew Dees and Jane Doe Dees, husband and
wife, Arizona residents, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00056-
ESW (D. Ariz., January 11, 2016), seeks to recover equitable
relief, minimum wages, overtime wages, unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

America's Best Tires is a one-stop distributor for tire and
equipment needs including Michelin, BFGoodrich, Uniroyal,
Goodyear, Dunlop, Bridgestone, Firestone, Kumho, Pirelli, Hankook,
Continental, General, Riken, Fuzion, Dayton, Peerless, and
Primewell. The Company is based in Louisville, Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Zoldan, Esq.
          ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          8100 E. Indian School Road, Suite 103
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Telephone: (480) 442 3410
          E-mail: http://www.zoldangroup.com


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Court Vacates $4MM Settlement Approval Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over a week after winning final Court approval of a $4 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit, American Greetings
Corporation and the plaintiffs sought and obtained approval of a
stipulation vacating the settlement approval order.

District Judge Jon S. Tigar for the Northern District of
California on Jan. 29 gave his stamp of approval on the settlement
reached in the case, AL SMITH AND JEFFREY HOURCADE, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN
GREETINGS CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:14-CV-02577 JST (N.D. Cal.).  That order is available at
http://is.gd/b32ODefrom Leagle.com.

The Jan. 29 Court order provides that:

     -- The Court grants incentive awards of $5,000 each to
        Plaintiffs Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade.

     -- The Court grants Plaintiffs' counsel $1,120,000 in
        attorneys' fees.

     -- The Court grants Plaintiffs' counsel $8,047.25 in
        litigation costs.

     -- The Court grants $35,000 in settlement administration
        costs to be paid from the settlement fund.

     -- The Court grants $37,500 to be paid to the California
        Labor & Workforce Development Agency from the settlement
        fund as penalties pursuant to the California's Private
        Attorney General Act.

Simpluris serves as class administrator.

Pursuant to the settlement, the average class participant is
slated to receive $1,615.01, while the highest amount that will be
paid to a class member is $6,322.72.

On Feb. 8, Judge Tigar entered the "STIPULATION AND ORDER RE
RELIEF FROM FINAL APPROVAL ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND CLASS REPRESANTATIVES' SERVICE
PAYMENTS [77] TO EFFECTUATE NOTICE TO ATTORNEYS GENERAL UNDER 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1715."  A copy of the Feb. 8 Stipulation is available
at http://is.gd/Pamwppfrom Leagle.com.

The Feb. 8 Stipulation provides that:

     (A) The Court, in the Final Approval Order, expressly
         retained "continuing jurisdiction over this settlement
         solely for the purposes of enforcing this agreement,
         addressing settlement administration matters, and
         addressing such post-judgment matters as may be
         appropriate under Court rules and applicable law";

     (B) 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1715 requires notice to be given to
         Appropriate Federal and State Officials of certain
         specified information pertaining to the settlement of a
         class action, and further provides that "an order giving
         final approval of a proposed settlement may not be
         issued earlier than 90 days after the later of the dates
         on which the appropriate Federal official and the
         appropriate State official are served with the notice";
         and

     (C) Counsel for the stipulating parties are informed and
         believe that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1715 are
         applicable to the instant matter and, further, that said
         notice has not to date been properly provided as a
         result of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect
         and/or other reasons that justify relief.

     (D) Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
         60(b)(1) and (6), Plaintiffs and Defendant jointly
         stipulate and request that the Court:

         1. Vacate its January 29, 2016 Order Granting Motion for
            Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Granting
            In Part Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class
            Representatives' Service Payments.

         2. Permit Defendant to promptly comply with the notice
            requirements of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1715. See Adoma v.
            University of Phoenix, 913 F.Supp.2d 964, 972-75
            (E.D. Cal. 2012)("even if defendants are late in
            serving notice to state and federal officials, class
            members may not exempt themselves from a settlement
            so long as at least 90 days elapse between service of
            the notice and entry of an order granting final
            approval of the settlement, as required by 28 U.S.C
            Sec. 1715(d)"); see also In re Processed Egg Products
            Antitrust Litigation, 284 F.R.D. 249, 258 n.12 (E.D.
            Pa. 2012) ("although notice requirements under CAFA
            have not been fully met on a technical basis, the
            substance of the requirements have been satisfied
            insofar as giving federal and state officials
            sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard"); Kay
            Co. v. Equitable Prod. Co., 2010 WL 1734869 at
            *4, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41892 at *14 (S.D.W.Va.
            2010).

         3. Set a Case Management Conference on a date convenient
            to the Court on or after May 25, 2016 to address: (i)
            comments, if any, from the Federal and State
            Officials who were given notice under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
            1715; (ii) issuance of an order granting final
            approval of the settlement, attorneys' fees, costs,
            and class representatives' service payments; and
            (iii) any other matters which may be relevant to this
            proceeding, final approval of the settlement,
            compliance with 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1715, and/or other
            pertinent issues.

Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade, former fixture installation crew
members for special projects, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, filed on June 4, 2014, a putative class action
lawsuit against American Greetings Corporation in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division. Plaintiffs claim that the Corporation violated
certain rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California
law, including the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders. For themselves and the proposed classes,
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of general and special
damages, including but not limited to minimum wages, agreed upon
wages and overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, statutory
penalties (including penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), unpaid benefits,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and interest).

In addition, plaintiffs request disgorgement of all funds the
Corporation acquired by means of any act or practice that
constitutes unfair competition and restoration of such funds to
the plaintiffs and the proposed classes.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
to add claims for reimbursement of business expenses and failure
to provide meal periods in violation of California Law and on
December 12, 2014, amended their PAGA notice to include the newly
added claims.

On January 20, 2015, the parties reached a settlement in principle
that, if approved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve the
claims brought by Smith and Hourcade, as well as the classes they
seek to represent. The settlement was a product of extensive
negotiations and a private mediation, which was finalized and
memorialized in a Stipulation and Class Action Settlement
Agreement signed March 30, 2015.

On March 31, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and on July 23, 2015, the
Court entered its Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement.

The proposed settlement establishes a settlement fund of $4.0
million to pay claims from current and former employees who worked
at least one day for American Greetings Corporation and/or certain
of its subsidiaries in any hourly non-exempt position in
California between June 4, 2010 and July 23, 2015.

On August 24, 2015, the claims administrator commenced mailing of
notice and claim forms to class members and the claims closed
October 24, 2015. On October 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion
for final approval of the class settlement, together with their
motion for approval of incentive payments to the Named Plaintiffs
and attorneys' fees. The Court held a final approval hearing on
December 17, 2015.

American Greetings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended November 27, 2015, that if the settlement
is finally approved, the Company will fund the settlement within
20 days after passage of all appeal periods. Thereafter, the
settlement funds will be disbursed as provided in the settlement
agreement and the Court's orders.

Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade are represented by:

     Kevin Francis Woodall, Esq.
     WOODALL LAW OFFICES
     580 California St Fl 16
     San Francisco, CA 94104-1037
     Tel: 415-413-4629

American Greetings is represented by:

     Angela J. Rafoth, Esq.
     Arthur M. Eidelhoch, Esq.
     Jessica Xing Yun Rothenberg, Esq.
     Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq.
     Littler Mendelson, P.C.
     650 California St, 20th Fl
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Tel: 415-433-1940
     E-mail: arafoth@littler.com
             aeidelhoch@littler.com
             JRothenberg@littler.com
             medwards@littler.com


ANDREU & ASSOCIATES: "Povedo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Povedo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Andreu & Associates, Inc., Jose
Andreu, Jose F. Rodriguez, Arturo Silveira, the Defendants, Case
No. 0:16-cv-60064-BB (S.D. Fla., January 11, 2016), seeks to
recover declaratory relief, unpaid overtime pay, liquidated and/or
other damages as permitted by applicable law, and attorney's fees,
costs, and expenses incurred under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Andreu & Associates operates as an electrical contractor. The
Company offers services through active projects in residential,
commercial, and industrial areas. Andreu & Associates provides a
staff of registered electrical engineers offering a range of
professional services from electrical design consultation to value
engineering in the cost of electrical construction. The Company is
based in Pompano Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Loren, Esq.
          100 South Pine Island Rd - Suite 132
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 585 4878
          Facsimile: (954) 585 4886
          E-mail: JLoren@Lorenlaw.com


ANTHEM: "Reid" Files Suit Over Denied Coverage
----------------------------------------------
Andrea Reid, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Anthem, formerly known
as Anthem of California, Inc., Anthem Holding Corp., formerly
known as Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Anthem Bluecross Life and Health Insurance Company, formerly known
as Anthem Life and Health Insurance Company, a California
corporation; Anthem of California, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC604939 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County,
December 21, 2015), seeks damages for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract,
and damages resulting from reckless infliction of severe emotional
distress and for violation of the California Business and
Profession Code Sec. 17500 and 17200.

Reid lost her two legs in an accident and Anthem denied coverage
for her above-the-knee prostheses.  The service was not covered by
her plan because it did not meet their criteria for medical
necessity, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Conal Doyle, Esq.
     Stephen Beke, Esq.
     DOYLE LAW
     9401 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 608
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Tel: 310-385-0567
     Email: conal@conaldoylelaw.com
            sbeke@conaldoylelaw.com


APOLLO EDUCATION: Defending Kentucky Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of Kentucky wage and hour laws, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 8, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended November 30, 2015.

On June 9, 2015, two former University of Phoenix employees filed
an action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Kentucky
alleging that they were wrongfully terminated from their positions
with the University in violation of Kentucky and federal law. In
this action, which is captioned Aldrich et al. v. The University
of Phoenix, 15-C-2839 (Jefferson Cty. Circuit Court), plaintiffs
also allege that the University violated Kentucky wage and hour
law by failing to pay plaintiffs overtime and other required
wages, and in connection with these wage and hour claims, they
seek to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
individuals employed by the University within the past five years
who performed a substantial part of their job duties in Kentucky.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on their own behalf in
connection with their alleged wrongful termination and past due
wages, overtime compensation and other relief on behalf of the
class in connection with the wage and hour claims.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on the information available to us at present, we cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and,
accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with
this action," the Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: District Court Struck Settlement Objection
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that a district
court has struck the objection by an individual non-class member
to the settlement of a securities class action.

"On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare
Funds filed a class action complaint alleging that we and certain
of our current and former directors and officers violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is entitled
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc.
et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB," the Company said.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this
matter for an immaterial amount and, on July 29, 2015, the
district court entered an order approving the settlement and
dismissing with prejudice the claims against defendants.
Subsequent to the approval, an individual non-class member filed
an untimely objection to the settlement with the district court.
On December 7, 2015, the district court struck the objection.


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Snowmobiles Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Arctic Cat Inc., of Thief River Falls, Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,600 Snowmobiles. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The brakes can fail, posing a risk of injury or death to the
operator.

This recall involves all model year 2016 Arctic Cat turbo 9000
snowmobiles. Recalled models include the M 9000, XF 9000, XF9000
Cross Trek and ZR 9000 snowmobiles. The recalled snowmobiles were
sold in the colors black, green, orange and white. The model name
is on a decal on the top of the chassis between the seat and the
rear bumper. The name Arctic Cat is on each side of the
snowmobiles. The letter G in the 10th position of the vehicle
identification number (VIN) indicates that the unit was made in
the 2016 model year. The VIN is stamped into the chassis near the
right foot rest.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/TbMqxG

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Arctic Cat dealers nationwide from June 2015 through January
2016 for between $14,000 and $16,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled snowmobiles
and contact an Arctic Cat dealer to schedule a free repair. Arctic
Cat is contacting its customers directly.


ASSET MANAGEMENT: Order Confirming Arbitration Award Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dennis M. Perluss reversed the Superior Court's judgment
confirming the arbitration award in the appealed case, PRISCILLA
AHERN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ASSET MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANTS INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. B260829,
(Cal. App.)

Priscilla Ahern, Thomas Ahern, Amlap Ahern, LLC and Michael Stella
and Asset Management Consultants, Inc., BH & Sons, LLC, Argent
Associates, LLC, Argent Real Estate Associates, L.P., James R.
Hopper and Gloria Hopper -- the Hopper parties -- were parties to
two arbitration proceedings. The Hopper parties prevailed in the
first proceeding (the Polsky arbitration), which they had
initiated; the award was confirmed by the superior court. The
arbitrator in the second proceeding (the Chernick arbitration)
then found the Polsky arbitration award barred the Ahern parties'
claims under the doctrine of res judicata. The Superior Court
confirmed the Chernick arbitration award and entered judgment in
favor of the Hopper parties. The Ahern parties appealed both
judgments.

In his Opinion dated January 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/lYMKa1from Leagle.com, Judge Perluss reversed the
judgment confirming the arbitration award. The matter is remanded
with direction to deny the petition to confirm the arbitration
award and to grant the Ahern parties' request to vacate the
arbitration award. The Ahern parties are to recover their costs on
appeal.

According to Judge Perluss, the Court of Appeals remittitur will
simply direct the Superior Court to reverse its judgment, deny the
petition to confirm the Chernick arbitration award and grant the
petition to vacate it. No rehearing in arbitration or new
arbitration proceeding will be ordered. Whether the Ahern parties
can still pursue their claims in another forum is not at issue in
this appeal.

Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Esq. -- kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com --
Nicole M. Catanzarite-Woodward, Esq. --
ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- and Eric V. Anderton, Esq. --
eanderton@catanzarite.com -- of Catanzarita Law Corporation serve
as counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants

M. Alim Malik, Esq. -- amalik@jdtplaw.com -- and Charles M. Clark,
Esq. -- cclark@jacksontidus.law -- of Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus &
Peckenpaugh serve as counsel for Defendants and Respondents, Asset
Management Consultants, Inc., BH & Sons, LLC, Argent Associates,
LLC, Argent Real Estate Associates L.P., James Hopper and Gloria
Hopper


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Firemen's Suit Seeks to Block NYCB Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
The Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Gerard C.
Keegan, Monte N. Redman, John R. Chrin, John J. Corrado, Robert
Giambrone, Brian M. Leeney, Patricia M. Nazemetz, Ralph F.
Palleschi, Astoria Financial Corporation and New York Community
Bancorp, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 607612/2015 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau
County, November 23, 2015) seeks to block the sale of Astoria
Financial Corporation to New York Community Bancorp, Inc. at $0.50
per share in cash and one share of NYCB stock. It claims that the
transaction is undervalued.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Astoria Financial.

Astoria Financial is a Delaware corporation with principal
executive offices at One Astoria Bank Plaza, Lake Success, New
York. Gerard C. Keegan, Monte N. Redman, John R. Chrin, John J.
Corrado, Robert Giambrone, Brian M. Leeney, Patricia M. Nazemetz
and Ralph F. Palleschi are officers/members of its Board of
Directors.

New York Community Bancorp, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
principal executive offices at 615 Merrick Avenue, Westbury, New
York

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      Michael G. Capeci, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             rrothman@rgrdlaw.com
             mreich@rgrdlaw.com
             mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com

           - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Gregory E. Del Gazio, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      Email: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
             soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
             gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com

           - and -

      Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
      WESTERMAN BALL EDERER MILLER ZUCKER & SHARFSTEIN, LLP
      1201 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556
      Tel: (516) 622-9200
      Fax: (516) 622-9212
      Email: jmiller@westermanllp.com


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Lowinger" Suit Seeks to Block NYCB Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lowinger, On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Monte N. Redman, Ralph F. Palleschi, John
R. Chrin, John J. Corrado, Robert Giambrone, Gerard C. Keegan,
Brian M. Leeney, Patricia M. Nazemetz, Astoria Financial
Corporation And New York Community Bancorp, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 607268/2015 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau County, November 23, 2015),
seeks to block the sale of Astoria Financial Corporation to New
York Community Bancorp, Inc. at $0.50 per share in cash and one
share of NYCB stock. It claims that the transaction is
undervalued.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Astoria Financial.

Astoria Financial is a Delaware corporation with principal
executive offices at One Astoria Bank Plaza, Lake Success, New
York. It operates through its wholly owned subsidiary Astoria
Bank. Monte N. Redman, Ralph F. Palleschi, John R. Chrin, John J.
Corrado, Robert Giambrone, Gerard C. Keegan, Brian M. Leeney,
Patricia M. Nazemetz are officers/members of the Board of
Directors of Astoria Bank.

New York Community Bancorp, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
principal executive offices at 615 Merrick Avenue, Westbury, New
York

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
      Phillip T. Taylor, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
      One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
      New York, NY 11747
      Tel: (212) 279-5050
      Fax: (212) 279-3655


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Raul" Suit Seeks to Block NYCB Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Malka Raul, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Ralph F. Palleschi, Monte N. Redman, John
R. Chrin, John Corrado, Robert Giambrone, Gerard C. Keegan, Brian
M. Leeney, Patricia M. Nazemetz, Astoria Financial Corporation,
New York Community Bancorp, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 607238/2015
(N.Y. Sup., Nassau County, November 6, 2015), seeks  to block the
sale of Astoria Financial Corporation to New York Community
Bancorp, Inc. at $0.50 per share in cash and one share of NYCB
stock. It claims that the transaction is undervalued.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Astoria Financial.

Astoria Financial is a Delaware corporation with principal
executive offices at One Astoria Bank Plaza, Lake Success, New
York. It operates through its wholly owned subsidiary Astoria
Bank. Monte N. Redman, Ralph F. Palleschi, John R. Chrin, John J.
Corrado, Robert Giambrone, Gerard C. Keegan, Brian M. Leeney,
Patricia M. Nazemetz are officers/members of the Board of
Directors of Astoria Bank.

New York Community Bancorp, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
principal executive offices at 615 Merrick Avenue, Westbury, New
York

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
     LIFSHITZ & MILLER
     821 Franklin Avenue
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Tel: (516) 493-9780


AUSTRALIA: More Than 200 Sailors Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Ursula Malone, writing for ABC, reports that more than 200
sailors, some of them still serving, have joined a class action
against the Royal Australian Navy alleging they were tricked into
signing up for four years under false promises they would leave
with a trade.

Key points:

   -- More than 200 sailors claim they received no training
   -- Say they were strung along with empty promises
   -- Trainee says experience impacted mental health

Instead, they claimed they received no training and little
practical experience and were left twiddling their thumbs for
months at a time.

In a case, 220 of them are suing the Navy for negligence and
breach of contract.

Former sailor Clayton Searle was 18 when he signed up.  He had
just left school and was struggling to find work in his home town
of Rockhampton in Queensland.

"One day mum suggested the idea of what about the military and no-
one I'd known had joined the Navy," he said.

"I like getting out on the water and I thought it would be a
pretty interesting career and it definitely seemed it from the
website."

Mr. Searle joined up under a program known as MT2010 and was given
a contract that said he would receive training leading to a trade
certificate IV in engineering.

But at the end of his four years he still had no qualification. He
alleges the recruitment process was dishonest and the Navy strung
him along with more empty promises.

"At the four-year mark they were offering new courses to act as
compensation for where they had gone wrong but it was still three
years before we'd receive a lesser qualification than what we were
scheduled to have," he said.

Trainee says time 'spent sitting around waiting'

Former trainee Jon Henderson from Sydney was in the same intake.

"As my career progressed it was quite obvious that we were never
going to get the training as promised and all along the way the
Navy were in the position of power and we were always beholden to
what the Navy dictated to us," he said.

He said much of his time in the Navy was spent sitting around
waiting.

"I was basically warehoused in a site called PSU or Personnel
Support Unit where numerous sailors basically sit around, read the
paper, go online," he said.

He said most of the work was done by contractors and there was
little opportunity for the promised training.

"Kids are going in there at 17, 18 and leaving with nothing. There
are guys who've been in there 10 years and are coming out and
having to do excess training just to get a qualification to get a
civilian job," he said.

Their lawyer Stewart Levitt said these stories were just the tip
of the iceberg.

"The disappointing reality has been that hundreds of Australian
apprentices and graduate students were placed in a position where
they were enticed to join the Navy with a promise of a certificate
IV in engineering, when the Navy had never developed a program let
alone had any demonstrable, sustainable intention to provide the
course," he said.

Mr. Levitt said billions of dollars was being wasted.

"These people have been paid salaries to do nothing by the
Australian taxpayer for the last four years, to play cards, to be
miserable and to be made miserable," he said.

He alleged that sailors who complained were locked in a room and
pressured to sign a release clearing the Navy of its training
obligations.

Others, he said, were punished by being sent on undesirable
assignments.

"I have spoken to a number of trainees who were despatched to
chase boat people back to Indonesia for example," he said.

Experience took toll on trainee's mental health

After years working as a concreter 24-year-old Mitchell Cupitt
joined up in October 2011, enticed by the prospect of a
qualification as an electrician.

"I wanted to get a trade and travel the world," he said.

Instead he also ended up at the PSU.

"We used to go to work and do pretty much nothing all day.  We'd
get our name marked off and fight over a lounge to get the
comfiest seat," he said.

The experience took a toll on his mental health.

"I had a bit of a rough patch, I suffered from depression.  I was
diagnosed while I was in. It wasn't just me suffering, everyone
was," he said.

Mr. Cupitt left the Navy after two years and is now back
concreting.

"I was lucky I got out and had something to fall back on.  I just
don't want this happening to anyone else," he said.

"They've done the wrong thing by everyone."

In a statement, the Department of Defence said: "Navy is aware of
the concerns raised by some current and former marine technicians,
who joined the Navy under the Marine Technician 2010 Career
Continuum, and has engaged with those affected."

"Navy's position is to solve this training issue," the statement
said.

"Unfortunately, as a result of the legal proceedings being
commenced, the Navy is unable to comment further."

The case is due to come before the NSW Supreme Court on May 20.


AUSTRALIA: Palm Island Man Sues Over Discriminatory Riot Arrests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Madigan, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that the
man who spent two years in jail for inciting the Palm Island riots
is attempting to start a political career after years of enforced
silence and imprisonment.

Lex Wotton has confirmed he is running in the local government
elections in March, accusing the local council under Mayor Alf
Lacey of failing the island's 3000 residents.

Mr. Wotton, who has a strong personal following among Australian
indigenous people, is aiming for a seat on the Palm Island Council
while brother-in-law Raymond Sibley will run for mayor.

"This is not about Lex Wotton, this is about Palm Island," said
Mr. Wotton, who is putting a "business incubator," a new
community-owned barge and job creation at the top of his policy
list.

"I am determined to make council accountable to the people," he
said.

After serving two years' jail for his role in the riots
Mr. Wotton, who had served as a councillor in the '90s, was banned
from talking to the media or attending public meetings after his
release in July of 2010.

With the ban lifted he has begun quietly agitating for change on
Palm Island, calling for more money for infrastructure while also
attacking poor school attendance and problems stemming from
ongoing drug and alcohol abuse.

Mr. Wotton, a plumber who oversees the island's sewerage system,
has also launched a class action against the State Government,
alleging it was racially discriminatory during arrests in a series
of dawn raids following the riots.

He has indicated an intention to channel a portion of any court
settlement back into Palm Island.

Mr. Sibley, who will challenge Cr Lacey for the top job, said he
and Mr. Wotton were determined to secure more employment for
locals in State Government building ventures.

Mr. Sibley said poor school attendance was also an ongoing problem
threatening the island's future, while also conceding some locals
had been slow to embrace a work ethic.

"Some of the people on this island think they go to work only when
they feel like going to work," he said.

"They have to learn, it doesn't work that way."


BANK OF AMERICA: "Flewellen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Millie Flewellen, individually and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, National Association, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00074-D (N.D. Tex., January 11, 2016),
seeks all damages including attorney's fees, unpaid back wages,
liquidated damages, costs, and further relief as may be necessary
and appropriate, pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bank of America operates as a full service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and investment
services for the public. Bank of America serves individual and
institutional customers throughout the United States. The Bank is
headquartered at Charlotte, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J Forester, Esq.
          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Lee & Braziel, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749 1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749 1010
          E-mail: www.overtimelawyer.com


BG GROUP: "Ayden" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Ayden, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The BG Group, LLC, Florida Limited
Liability Company, Steven Greenberg and Ivy Greenberg, Defendants,
Case No. 9:15-cv-81775-BB (S.D. Fla., Palm Beach Division,
December 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.

The BG Group, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with
principal place of business at 1140 Holland Drive, Suite 19, Boca
Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida 33487.

Andre Ayden worked for Defendants as a demolition laborer and
machine operator. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek without overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A.
      1715 N. Westshore Blvd, Suite 400
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Tel: (813) 639-9366
      Fax: (813) 639-9376
      Email: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


BURBERRY: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Price Tags
-------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that British luxury fashion brand Burberry is to
face a class action lawsuit in the United States, claiming it used
misleading price tags at its outlet stores to fool shoppers into
believing the goods were being sold at a hefty discount.


CE NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Fan Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
CE North America LLC, of Miami, Fla., announced a voluntary recall
of about 28,000 KUL Fan Heaters in the United States (in addition,
about 260 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The fan heaters can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves KUL small, black portable fan heaters.  The
KUL logo is printed on the front bottom of the heaters next to the
power dial. The fan heater measures about 9 inches long by 5
inches wide by 10.5 inches tall. The fans weigh about two pounds.
An adhesive label is on the bottom of the heater with model number
"KU39229" and "Date: 0515" in the lower right-hand corner.

CE North America has received four reports of the fan heaters
overheating and catching fire. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/aUxnwa

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed,
Bath & Beyond stores nationwide and online at
www.bedbathandbeyond.com  from August 2015 through October 2015
for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fan heaters
and contact CE North America for instructions on returning the
recalled heaters with a prepaid shipping label. The firm will
issue a refund check upon receipt of the returned fan heaters.


CHAMPION BRANDS: "Jones" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Jones, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated.
the Plaintiff, v. Champion Brands, Inc. the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-00023-HLA-JBT (M.D. Fla., January 11, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest, attorney fees, and other relief, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Champion Brands was founded in 1956 and is based in Clinton,
Missouri. The Company's line of business includes the production
of lubricating oils and greases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          MATTHEW BIRK, LLC
          309 Northeast First Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 244 2069
          Facsimile: (352) 372 3464


CINTAS CORP: Settled Gender Bias Suit for Immaterial Amount
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation has settled a gender discrimination lawsuit for
an immaterial amount, Cintas said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015.

Cintas is a defendant in a purported Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) systemic gender discrimination lawsuit, Mirna E.
Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on May 10,
2004, and pending in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Serrano plaintiffs
alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in hiring into
various service sales representative (SSR) positions in the Rental
Uniforms and Ancillary Products operating segment. On November 15,
2005, the EEOC intervened in the Serrano lawsuit. The Serrano
plaintiffs seek lost pay, injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies on behalf of
unsuccessful female candidates for SSR positions.

On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court in the
Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of
Cintas limiting the scope of the action to female applicants for
SSR positions at Cintas locations within the state of Michigan.
Consequently, all claims brought by or on behalf of female
applicants for SSR positions outside of the state of Michigan were
dismissed. Similarly, any claims brought by the EEOC on behalf of
similarly situated female applicants outside of the state of
Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano lawsuit.

In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all private
individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the 13
individuals it claimed to represent. The EEOC appealed the
District Court's summary judgment decisions and various other
rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.

On November 9, 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the District Court's opinion and remanded the claims back to the
District Court. On April 16, 2013, Cintas filed with the United
States Supreme Court a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari seeking
to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit. On October 7, 2013, the Court denied Cintas'
Petition, thus remanding the claims back to the District Court
consistent with the Sixth Circuit Court's November 9, 2012
decision.

The parties have agreed to a settlement, and on November 25, 2015,
the District Court approved the entry of a Consent Decree between
EEOC and Cintas Corporation settling the case. The settlement was
not material to Cintas' continuing operations.


CLASSIC CHARACTERS: Recalls Infant Elf Booties
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Classic Characters Inc., of Quebec, Canada, announced a voluntary
recall of about 4,000 pairs of Infant Elf Booties. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The pompoms at the tip of the toe can detach, posing a choking
hazard to young children.

This recall involves Classic Characters' infant knit Elf Booties
sold in sizes 6 through 12 months. The SKU number 507665 and style
number 28046 are printed on the price tag. The infant booties are
green, with red and white trim, and a yellow pompom on the tip of
the toe.

Classic Characters has received two reports of the pompoms
detaching from the shoes. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/GiIYyd

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store nationwide and online at
www.crackerbarrel.com from September 2015 through November 2015
for about $13.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled elf booties
and return them to a Cracker Barrel Old Country Store(R) for a
full refund, or contact Classic Characters for instructions on
returning them for a full refund.


CLAYTON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS: "Bynum" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Khristia Bynum, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated plaintiff, v. Clayton County Public
Schools and Clarence E. Cox, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00001-
MHC (N.D. Ga., Atlanta Division, December 30, 2015), seeks back
pay, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and
costs of litigation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.

Defendants hired Plaintiff as an investigator with the Clayton
County Schools Police Department, Office of Safety and Security.
She routinely worked in excess of 50 hours per week without
overtime premium. She was also required to be on-call for 24 hours
at certain times, the Complaint says.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Job J. Milfort, Esq.
      PRIOLEAU & MILFORT, LLC
      BB&T Building - Atlantic Station
      271 17th Street, N.W., Suite 520
      Atlanta, GA 30363
      Tel: (404) 681-4886
      Tel: (404) 920-3330
      Email: job@pmlawteam.com


CON-WAY INC: Defending Stockholder Suit over XPO Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Con-way Inc. is defending stockholder lawsuits related to its
merger deal with XPO Logistics, Inc., according to XPO in its Form
8-K/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 13, 2016.

On September 9, 2015, XPO Logistics, Inc. entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Con-way Inc. and Canada Merger
Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
XPO.  On October 30, 2015, XPO completed its acquisition of Con-
way pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.

On October 7, 2015, a purported stockholder of Con-way filed a
putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
captioned Abrams v. Espe, et al., C.A. No. 11585-VCN (the
"Acquisition Litigation"). The complaint names the members of the
board of directors of Con-way, XPO, Merger Sub, and Citigroup
Inc., financial advisor to Con-way in connection with the proposed
acquisition ("Citi"), as defendants. Con-way may have certain
contractual indemnification obligations with respect to Citi. The
complaint alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder
value in connection with the proposed transaction and failing to
disclose certain information in the Schedule 14D-9 of Con-way
relating to the proposed acquisition. The complaint also alleges
that XPO, Merger Sub, and Citi aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

The lawsuit sought, among other relief, injunctive relief (i)
enjoining the defendants from closing the tender offer and the
proposed transaction, (ii) enjoining the defendants from
initiating or continuing any purported defensive measures that
would inhibit their ability to conduct a "market check," and (iii)
enjoining the defendants from closing the tender offer until the
defendants make certain additional disclosures. The lawsuit also
seeks, among other things, rescissory damages and recovery of the
costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees.

Con-way has denied any liability with respect to these claims and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this case and carries a
directors' and officers' insurance policy with respect to the
fiduciary claims. Therefore, Con-way is unable at this time to
estimate the amount or timing of the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, that may result from the claims.


CON-WAY INC: Continues to Defend California Wage and Hour
---------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc., said in its Form 8-K/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2016, that Con-
way Inc. is a defendant in several class-action lawsuits alleging
violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws.
Plaintiffs allege that Con-way failed to provide drivers with
required meal breaks and rest breaks. Plaintiffs seek to recover
unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees.

The primary case is Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v. Con-way
Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina" case). The Pina case was
initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey County Superior Court
and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California, Northern
District. On April 12, 2012, the Court granted plaintiff's request
for class certification in the Pina case as to a limited number of
issues. The class certification rulings do not address whether
Con-way will ultimately be held liable.

Con-way has denied any liability with respect to these claims and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this case. There are
multiple factors that prevent Con-way from being able to estimate
the amount of potential loss, if any, that may result from this
matter, including: (1) Con-way is vigorously defending itself and
believes that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses; and
(2) at this stage in the case, there are unresolved questions of
fact that could be important to the resolution of this matter.

On September 9, 2015, XPO Logistics, Inc. entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Con-way Inc. and Canada Merger
Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
XPO.  On October 30, 2015, XPO completed its acquisition of Con-
way pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.


CONAIR CORP: Bids to Certify or Decertify Due March 7
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge William B. Shubb ordered that all motions to
certify or decertify a class shall be filed on or before March 7,
2016 in the case, DELIA WILSON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CONAIR CORPORATION,
Defendant, Civ. No. 1:14-00894 WBS SAB, (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Delia Wilson brought this putative class action against
Conair Corporation, asserting violations of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq., the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, and breach
of implied warranty for allegedly misrepresenting the safety of
Conair's Curling Irons, Straightening Irons, and Curling Brushes.
Plaintiff now applies to shorten the time on her motion for leave
to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC), requesting that the court
move the hearing date from February 22, 2016 to February 1, 2016.

Plaintiff also seeks an extension of 30 days to file her motion
for class certification, requesting that the court move the
deadline from February 5, 2016 to March 7, 2016.

Defendant opposes Plaintiff's application to shorten time on the
motion to amend and to extend time on the motion for class
certification.

In his Memorandum and Order dated January 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/QZ84ywfrom Leagle.com, Judge Shubb granted
Plaintiff's application to shorten time on Plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a first amended complaint and to continue class
certification. The court said the statute of limitations for
Plaintiff's personal injury claims is a satisfactory reason for
shortening time on Plaintiff's motion to amend. Defendant's desire
to file Rule 11 sanctions does not justify denying Plaintiff's
motion. Accordingly, the court granted Plaintiff's application to
shorten time on her motion for leave to file a FAC and moved the
hearing to February 8, 2016.

The court also said Plaintiff was sufficiently diligent in seeking
to incorporate the reporting failure into her Complaint and motion
for class certification, even though she technically could have
raised this issue in her prior motion for an extension. The
extension of time will not prejudice Defendant as it will not
cause additional changes to the scheduling order -- the pre-trial
conference will remain on November 7, 2016 with trial set for
January 10, 2017. Granting an extension also will not interfere
substantially with discovery, which remains open until July 1,
2015.

The hearing for Plaintiff's motion to amend was moved to February
8, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.  All motions to certify or decertify a class
shall be filed on or before March 7, 2016.

Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. -- kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net -- of
Odenbreit Law, APC; and Leslie Eileen Hurst, Esq. --
lhurst@bholaw.com -- Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq. --
toreardon@bholaw.com -- and Timothy G. Blood, Esq. --
tblood@bholaw.com -- of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Delia Wilson

Ryan Donald Saba, Esq. -- rsaba@rosensaba.com -- of Rosen Saba
serves as counsel for Defendant Conair Corporation


CRESCENT POINT: Recalls Propane (LP) Gas Due to Burn Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Crescent Point Energy Corp., of Canada, announced a voluntary
recall of about 118,000,000 gallons of Propane (LP) Gas (U.S.)
(additional units sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The recalled propane does not have sufficient levels of odorant to
help alert consumers of a gas leak. Failure to detect leaking gas
can present fire, explosion and thermal burn hazards.

This recall involves under-odorized propane gas (LP) delivered to
consumers for use in storage tanks or sold at retail locations for
use in portable refillable tanks (for use in recreational
vehicles, barbeques, stoves and other appliances). LP was also
sold to businesses for commercial and industrial use.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/wX8cWb

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold at
Distributed in Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin and
Utah, delivered by various companies and sold by retailers between
April 2009 and October 2015.

Consumers should not attempt to test the propane themselves.
Instead, they should immediately contact the retailer, supplier or
Crescent Point Energy hotline to arrange for an inspection. If
inspection confirms that the propane contains insufficient
odorant, Crescent Point Energy will either promptly arrange for
appropriate odorization or provide a replacement portable tank.
Consumers should have carbon monoxide alarms in homes or other
buildings that utilize gas. If consumers do smell even a faint
odor of gas or a gas leak, they should immediately leave the
building and call 911 or their gas supplier from a neighbor's
phone. Do not light a match, turn on a light or switch on anything
electrical.


DE MAIZ TORTILLERIA: Violates FLSA, "Hernandez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. De Maiz Tortilleria, LLC, and Luis
Gonzalez, the Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-00012 (S.D. Tex.,
January 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
related penalties, declaratory relief, unpaid overtime pay,
liquidated and/or other damages as permitted by applicable law,
and attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action,
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

De Maiz Tortilleria was established in 2006 and incorporated in
Texas. The company has an estimated annual revenue of $5-10
million and employs a staff of approximately 1-4.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Loren, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & LOREN, P.A.
          3102 Maple Avenue -Suite 450
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (954) 585 4878
          Facsimile: (954) 585 4886
          E-mail: JLoren@Lorenlaw.com


DKL VENTURES: "Collins" Suit Seeks Wages & Legal Remedies
---------------------------------------------------------
Angela Collins on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DKL Ventures,
LLC, a Colorado corporation d/b/a Select Home Care; and Eric David
Lewis, in his individual and corporate capacities, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00070 (D. Col., January 12, 2016), seeks to
recover wages in an amount to be determined at trial, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, costs,
and other compensation and legal remedies, and also including such
declaratory and injunctive or other equitable relief, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Colorado Wage Act, and Colorado
Minimum Wage Orders.

DKL Ventures is a Colorado corporation located at Greenwood
Village, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Miller, Esq.
          Rachel Graves, Esq.
          SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
          1600 Ogden Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 839 1650
          Facsimile: (720) 235 4377
          E-mail: DMiller@sawayalaw.com
                  RGraves@sawayalaw.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls Toy Trucks Due to Fire & Burn Hazards
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dollar General Corp., of Goodlettsville, Tenn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 27,000 Toy trucks. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The toy truck's remote control can short circuit, causing it to
overheat and posing fire and burn hazards.

This recall involves a toy excavator and a shovel loader. The
remote controlled plastic toys are orange with black and orange
wheels. Both have tracking code 90RWE15 marked on the back of the
battery compartment. UPC number 00430000549030 can be found on the
bottom of the packaging. Power, Shovel Loader and Super Power are
printed on stickers located on the side of the excavator. UPC
00400001622537 can be found on the bottom of the packaging. 6000Kg
Peakload, FL-330 Deluxe Crane, and Crane Super Truck are printed
on stickers located on the side of the shovel loader.

Dollar General has received five reports of the toy's remote
control overheating. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/pTkOoX

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Dollar General stores nationwide and online at
www.dollargeneral.com from July 2015 through December 2015 for
about $10.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy vehicles away
from children and contact Dollar General for a full refund.


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Pope" Sues Over Illegal Sports Betting
-------------------------------------------------------
Jared C. Pope, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Draftkings, Inc., a Massachusetts
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00019-TFM (M.D. Ala.,
January 11, 2016), seeks to recover damages from Defendants in the
form of restitution and lost gambling wagers under Alabama Law.

Draftkings is a company operating Daily Fantasy Sports ("DFS")
websites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Cherry, Jr., Esq.
          Blaine C. Stevens, Esq.
          CHERRY & IRWIN, P.C.
          163 West Main Street
          Dothan, AL 36301
          Telephone: (334) 793 1000
          E-mail: Sam@.cherryirwin.com
                  Blaine@cherryirwin.com


EASTHILL GROUP: Recalls Multi-function Power Packs
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Easthill Group Inc., dba Eastwood Co., of Pottstown, Pa.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 500 Rockwood Multi-function
power packs. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The power packs' lithium ion batteries can burst during charging,
posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves Rockwood portable power packs with lithium
ion batteries and cables. They are used to charge a variety of
electronic devices and car batteries and have a recessed LED
flashlight. The power packs have a black plastic cover with
"Rockwood" printed in white on the top. They measure about 6
inches long, 3 inches wide and 1 inch tall.  A yellow and white
danger label is on the bottom. Item number 30554 is printed on the
packaging.

There have been two reports of the battery packs' lithium ion
batteries bursting during charging and emitting black smoke,
damaging carpet and leaving a black mark on a wall. No injuries
have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/1ywPct

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Eastwood stores in Chicago, Parma, Ohio and Pottstown, Pa., in
Eastwood's catalog and online at www.eastwood.com and other
websites from January 2015 through October 2015 for between $50
and $110.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled power packs
and return them to Eastwood for a full refund.


EMC CORP: "Pancake" Suit Seeks to Enjoin EMC and Denali Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Pancake, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EMC Corporation, Joseph M. Tucci, Jose
E. Almeida, Michael Brown, Donald J. Carty, Randolph L. Cowen,
James S. Distasio, John R. Egan, William, D. Green, Edmund F.
Kelly, Jami Miscik, Paul Sagan, Laura J. Sen, Dell Inc., Denali
Holding, Inc., Universal Acquisition Co., the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-10040 (D. Mass., January 11, 2016), asks the  Courr to
enjoin the Agreement and Plan of Merger between EMC and Denali
Holding Inc.

If the Merger is approved by EMC shareholders and completed,
shareholders are to receive, in exchange for each share of EMC
common stock owned, $24.04 in cash, without interest, and fully
paid and non-assessable shares of common stock of Denali
designated as Class V Common Stock, according to the Complaint.

EMC is a service provider to information technology (IT)
operations as a service model (ITaaS). It develops, delivers and
supports the IT industry's range of information infrastructure and
virtual infrastructure technologies, solutions and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa DeBrosse Johnson, Esq.
          LISA JOHNSON LAW
          Ten Post Office Square, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA
          Telephone: (617) 850 9065
          Facsimile: (617) 850 9066
          E-mail: Lisa@lisajohnsonlaw.com


EMI GROUP: 9th Circuit Revives "Bozzio" Case
--------------------------------------------
Ninth Circuit Judge Morgan Christen reversed the District Court's
order dismissing a complaint filed by Dale Bozzio against EMI
Group Limited and other recording companies.

This is a breach of contract case. Dale Bozzio, front woman of the
former band Missing Persons, claims the defendant recording
companies improperly treated certain sales of Missing Persons's
recordings -- through music download services, mobile phone
mastertone downloads, and licensing for music streaming services
-- as record sales rather than revenue from licensing, and, as a
result, paid the artists a lower royalty rate than the one
provided for in their recording contracts. Bozzio is not a party
to the recording contracts she seeks to enforce, but she filed
suit as a third-party beneficiary.

The District Court dismissed Bozzio's complaint. The court
reasoned that even if Bozzio was an intended third-party
beneficiary, the contracting party, Missing Persons, Inc., was a
suspended corporation when Bozzio filed her complaint and its
suspended status prevented it from bringing suit under California
law. The District Court ruled that because Missing Persons, Inc.
lacked capacity to sue, a third-party beneficiary of Missing
Persons, Inc.'s contract was similarly without capacity to sue.
The District Court decided that any amendment would be futile and
dismissed Bozzio's complaint with prejudice.

Bozzio's appeal asked the Ninth Circuit to resolve two questions:

     (1) Whether the district court erred by concluding that
         Missing Persons, Inc.'s suspended status precluded
         Bozzio's suit; and

     (2) whether Bozzio pleaded facts sufficient to establish her
         standing to sue as a third-party beneficiary of the
         contract between Missing Persons, Inc. and the recording
         companies.

In his Opinion dated January 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/4U8rOXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Christen reversed the
District Court's order dismissing the Bozzio's complaint. The
Court of Appeals found that the District Court erred in dismissing
the complaint, and the Court of Appeals cannot affirm on different
grounds.

Bozzio served as president of Missing Persons, Inc. for some
period of time, but she argued that she cannot revive the
corporation under Sec. 23305 because only Missing Persons, Inc.
can access the royalty statements and relevant records that are
necessary to calculate the amount of back taxes owed.

According to Bozzio, she cannot calculate, much less pay, the
corporation's back taxes because she cannot access the royalty
statements. While Bozzio is not "innocent" in the sense that she
is unrelated to the defunct corporation, the face of the complaint
does not demonstrate that Bozzio is "directly . . . responsible
for the suspended status of the corporation."  The Ninth Circuit
said it was an error to grant the motion to dismiss on the ground
that Missing Persons, Inc. was a suspended corporation.

Even if Missing Persons, Inc.'s suspended status does not preclude
Bozzio's suit, Capitol maintains that dismissal is proper because
Bozzio waived any right to sue Capitol -- including the right to
sue as a third-party beneficiary -- by signing an Artist
Declaration in which she agreed that she would not "look to"
Capitol for payment of royalties.

The Court of Appeals agrees with Bozzio that whether she forfeited
the ability to sue as a third-party beneficiary is a fact-bound
inquiry ill-suited to resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.
On remand, a record can be developed that will allow consideration
of Bozzio's claim that she was an intended third-party beneficiary
of the Agreement. An application to revive a suspended corporation
"may be made by any stockholder or creditor, by a majority of the
surviving trustees or directors thereof, by an officer, or by any
other person who has interest in the relief from suspension." It
appears that Bozzio is eligible to apply to have Missing Persons,
Inc. restored to good standing under Section 23305b because she is
a "person who has interest in the relief from suspension."

Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. -- zirpoli@saveri.com -- Guido Saveri, Esq. --
guido@saveri.com -- R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. -- rick@saveri.com
-- and Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq. -- carl@saveri.com -- of
Saveri & Saveri; and Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. --
rbonsignore@class-actions.us -- and Lisa Sleboda, Esq. of
Bonsignore and Brewer serve as counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant

Peter I. Ostroff, Esq. -- postroff@sidley.com -- Rollin A. Ransom,
Esq. -- rransom@sidley.com -- and Michelle B. Goodman, Esq. --
mgoodman@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP serve as counsel for
Defendants-Appellees

The appellate case is, DALE BOZZIO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMI GROUP
LIMITED; CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC; EMI MUSIC NORTH AMERICA, LLC; EMI
RECORDED MUSIC; and EMI MARKETING, Defendants-Appellees, No. 13-
15685, (9th Cir.)


FALCON DRILLING: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Falcon Drilling LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00044-NBF (W.D. Penn., Pittsburg Division,
January 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs from the Defendant
under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Falcon Drilling offers drilling services. The Company drills for
oil and natural gas off shore and off shore on contract basis.
Falcon Drilling serves customers in the United States and is based
in Carnegie, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766 1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766 0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND
          BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet St.
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751 0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751 0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com
                  jbresler@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


FANDUEL INC: "Giametta" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Giametta, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fanduel, Inc., FANDUEL, LLC,
Fanduel Deposits, LLC, Draftkings, Inc, and Draftkings, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00004 (E.D.N.Y., January 3, 2016),
seeks:

  -- injunctive relief arising from breach of contract,
  -- recovery of damages; and
  -- attorney's fees

for violation of the New York General Business Law Sec. 349, 350.

Daily Fantasy Sports is an online game that allows paying
participants to engage in virtual athletic drafting with data tied
to actual player statistics that allows game simulations.
Draftkings, Inc. and Fanduel, Inc. entice participants to play by
offering cash winnings.

Defendants allegedly breached contract by failing to honor the
offer of dollar for dollar match against the Plaintiff's initial
deposit.

DraftKings is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 225 Franklin St., 26th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts. FanDuel is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 41 East 11th Street, 10th
Floor, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent J. Trimarco, Jr., Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT J. TRIMARCO IR, PC.
      1038 West Jericho Turnpike
      Smithtown, NY 1 1787
      Tel: (631) 543-3456 Ext. 226
      Fax: (631) 543-3462


FITBIT INC: Violates Securities Act of 1933, "Robb" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian H. Robb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fitbit Inc., James Park, and William
R. Zerella, the Defendants, Case No. Case 3:16-cv-00151 (N.D.
Cal., January 11, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages
including costs and expenses incurred in the action, counsel fees
and expert fees, and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

Fitbit is an American company headquartered in San Francisco,
California. Founded and managed by James Park and Eric Friedman,
the company is known for its products of the same name, which are
activity trackers, wireless-enabled wearable technology devices
that measure data such as the number of steps walked, quality of
sleep, steps climbed, and other personal metrics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Marc Gorrie, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532 6449
          Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                 jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com
                 mgorrie@pomlaw.com


FLEET LEASE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Sales Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two
Staten Island residents are suing a used car dealership, its owner
and its president over claims of unlawful and deceptive sales
practices.

Isaac Labidou and Olivia Salabarria, individually and for all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit Jan. 28 in
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Fleet
Lease Network, doing business as New Jersey Auto Auction, Lazlo
Ember and Loucas Stylianou, alleging violations of the New Jersey
Motor Vehicle Advertising Practices Regulations; the Consumer
Fraud Act; the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act; the Automotive Sales Practices Regulation; and the Used Car
Lemon Law Regulations.

The suit alleges the defendants sold vehicles at a base price in
excess of advertised prices and misrepresented and overcharged for
official registration, title and license plate fees.

The suit also alleges the defendants failed to provide the written
short-term warranty, as required by the New Jersey Used Car Lemon
Law.

The plaintiffs and others in the class seek actual and statutory
damages, injunctive relief, interests, attorney fees and costs of
the suit.  They are represented by attorney Mariel Mercado-Guevara
of The Wolf Law Firm in North Brunswick, New Jersey, and by
attorney Christopher J. McGinn of The Law Office of Christopher J.
McGinn in Highland Park, New Jersey.

The defendant filed to transfer the case to federal court because
there is minimum diversity of citizenship among the parties, the
putative class exceeds 100 members and the matter in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Case number
2:16-CV-00502-WJM-MF


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Facing Class Suit over FracMax(R) Software
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 19, 2016, that as a result of issues raised in an
independent report regarding the accuracy of the Company's
FracMax(R) software and efficacy of the Company's CnF(R)
completion chemistries, the Company was named as a defendant in a
number of shareholder class action and derivative lawsuits. In
addition, the Company received notice from the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") that it has opened an inquiry related
to similar issues.


FRAL SERVICES: Violates FLSA and NJWHL, "Franco" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Ennio Franco, Jr., on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fral Services, Inc., d/b/a
Park2go, Alexander Shtrakham, individually, and Frank Barone,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00169-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J., January 11, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wage
compensation, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of Fair
Labor Standards Act and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Fral Services was established in 2011 and is based in Warren, New
Jersey. The company has an annual revenue of $180,000 and employs
a staff of approximately 6.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687 9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595 0308
          E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


FREEMAN DECORATING: Utility Cost Suit Asserts UCL Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Utility Cost Management LLC., a California limited company, and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Freeman Decorating
Services Inc., a Texas Corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC605339 (Cal. Super Ct., December 23,
2015), seeks to recover repayment from charges of resale of
electricity, pursuant to Unfair Competition Law, Business &
Professional Code, and Constructive Trust.

Freeman Decorating Company produces expositions, conventions,
corporate events, and exhibits. The company focuses on providing
integrated services for face-to-face marketing and brand building
events, including expositions, conventions, corporate events,
meetings, and exhibit programs. Its services include designing and
building custom exhibits; managing exhibit programs; decorating
and designing for various types of shows and events; providing
creative direction and content development services; and offering
strategic direction and consultation services for brand
development, communication strategy, and event marketing. The
company is based in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Fourchy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK FOURCHY
          3716 N. First Street
          Fresno, CA 93726
          Telephone: (559) 225 8324
          Facsimile: (559) 225 0646


GALARDI SOUTH: Renewed Bid for Certification Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division, granted in part plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification in the case JASZMANN ESPINOZA, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. GALARDI SOUTH ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-21244-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.)

Plaintiffs are dancers who are suing defendants for, among other
things, minimum wage and overtime violations arising from their
work at defendant Fly Low, Inc. d/b/a King of Diamonds, a strip
club. Plaintiffs allege claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and Florida law.

The court previously granted conditional certification of an FLSA
collective action against defendants. More than 20 claimants have
opted into the collective action.

Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for rule 23 class certification
seeking class certification of their state law claims under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiffs want to certify a
class based on alleged violations of Article X, Section 24 of the
Florida Constitution and Florida Statute Section 448.110.
Plaintiffs request that the court will certify their state law
claims classes, and approve their proposed notice to the putative
class.

Magistrate Judge Goodman granted in part plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and directed the parties to submit a revised
proposed class notice.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Goodman's order dated January 11, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/mdjnPRfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Jaszmann Espinoza et al are represented by Harlan S.
Miller, Parks, Chesin & Walbert, P.C. &

     Dana Mason Gallup, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF DANA M. GALLUP, P.A.
     4000 Hollywood Boulevard
     Presidential Circle
     Suite 265 South
     Hollywood, FL 33021
     Toll Free: 888-545-2325
     Local: 954-889-5125

Defendants Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., Galardi South
Enterprise Consulting, Inc., Teri Galardi, Dennis Willliams, Jack
E. Galardi, LLC, JEG Family Turst, MBJG Investment Corp., and LVA
Management & Consulting, Inc., are represented by Dean Richard
Fuchs -- drf@swtlaw.com -- Schulten Ward Turner, LLP, Daniel Wayne
Matlow -- dmatlow@danmatlow.com -- Daniel W. Matlow, P.A. &
Stephen Whitfield Brown -- swb@swtlaw.com -- Schulten Ward &
Turner, LLP

Defendants Rick Taylor, AQFC, LLC, Kodrenyc, LLC, AK 'N Eli, LLC,
Akinyele Adams, and Nitty 'N AK Corp., are represented by Stephen
Whitfield Brown, Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Violates Clayton Act, Spokane Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
City of Spokane, on behalf a Class of persons and entities who
purchased liquid aluminum sulfate ("Alum"), the Plaintiff, v.
General Chemical Corporation; General Chemical Performance
Products, LLC; Chemtrade Logistics Inc.; Chemtrade Chemicals
Corporation; Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC; Gentek, Inc.; Kemira
Chemicals, Inc.; and Frank A. Reichl, and John Does 1-50, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00010 (E.D. Wash., Spokane, December
16, 2015), seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit, and
other relief as a result of the Defendants' violation of Sherman
Act and Clayton Act.

The Defendants allegedly conspired and agreed to fix, raise,
inflate, maintain or stabilize prices of Alum, rig bids and
allocate customers for Alum supplied to municipalities, pulp and
paper companies, agricultural companies and all other direct
purchasers in the United States.

General Chemical Corporation manufactures specialty chemicals. The
Company provides refinery and chemical sulfuric acid regeneration
services. General Chemical serves the photographic, water
treatment and pharmaceutical industries. The Company is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
          Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384
          E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com
                  dmensher@kellerrohrback.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Suez Water Suit Alleges Alum Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUEZ Water Management & Services Inc., SUEZ Water Environmental
Services Inc., SUEZ Water New Jersey Inc., SUEZ Water Princeton
Meadows Inc., SUEZ Water New York Inc., and SUEZ Water
Pennsylvania Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical
Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, GenTek
Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics Inc.,
Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC; and
John Doe Nos. 1-50, Case No. 2:15-cv-08697-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.
December 17, 2015), seeks treble damages in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C.

Defendants are allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum
sulfate in the United States. Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum
sulfate directly from the defendants at allegedly excessive
prices.

Reichl was the General Manager of Water Chemicals for General
Chemical Group, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of
Delaware, with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road,
Parsippany, New Jersey.

General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the
laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300,
155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario.

General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a limited liability
company organized under the laws of Delaware with principal place
of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey.

GenTek Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek manufactured and
supplied water treatment chemicals throughout the United States.
It owned and controlled Defendants General Chemical Performance
Products LLC and General Chemical Corporation.

Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under
the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals
and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United
States and Europe.

Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade
Logistics Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province
of Ontario.

Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a
subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      Terri Anne Benedetto, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      550 Broad Street, Esq.
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Tel: (973) 639-9100
      E-Mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
              tbenedetto@seegerweiss.com

           - and -

      Stephen R. Neuwirth
      Sami H. Rashid
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
      51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010
      Tel: (212) 849-7000
      Fax: (212) 849-7100
      E-Mail: stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com
              samirashid@quinnemanuel.com


HAKKASAN HOLDINGS: Judge Wants "Johnson" Tip Pooling Case Amended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert C. Jones granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the captioned case CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON et al., Plaintiffs,
v. HAKKASAN HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-01410-RCJ-NJK,
(D. Nev.).  Judge Jones, however, allowed the Plaintiffs an
opportunity to amend his complaint.

Christopher Johnson is employed as a busser by Defendant Hakkasan
Holdings LLC, formerly known as Light Group, LLC, and doing
business as Light Nightclub, which is located in the Mandalay Bay
Resort and Casino in Las Vegas. He worked in that position from
November 2008 until approximately June 2010 and from November 2011
to date. Plaintiff Sam Carrillo has been a busser for Defendant
since February 2012. Defendant operates a tip pool as to
Plaintiffs' tips and permits managers to participate in the pool.
Plaintiffs have sued Defendant in this Court based on the tip-
sharing arrangement. Although only a single nominal cause of
action is listed in the Complaint, Plaintiffs appear in substance
to assert two claims: (1) violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA); and (2) violation of Nevada Revised Statutes section
(NRS) 608.160.

Defendant has moved to dismiss.

In his Order dated January 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/KFMp1afrom Leagle.com, Judge Jones granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. There is no
private cause of action to enforce NRS 608.160. Plaintiffs have
conceded this and have disclaimed any intent to bring such a
claim. Plaintiffs explain in response that they only cited to NRS
608.160 to support their argument that the tip pool was invalid
under the FLSA.

Judge Jones noted that the state statute flatly prohibits the
taking of any part of an employee's tips (except to be
redistributed amongst employees according to a voluntary tip-
sharing agreement) or the use of tips as a credit against the
state minimum wage. The FLSA, however, as Defendant correctly
notes in reply, does not incorporate state labor laws. Plaintiffs
have alleged that their tip-sharing arrangement is involuntary,
but contrary to their arguments in response, they have not alleged
in the Complaint that there was no explicit understanding of the
tip-sharing arrangement (the relevant inquiry), and they imply
that there was when they allege that Defendant "based tip
calculations on] gross sales receipts of the employee, regardless
of whether the employee was actually tipped . . . ." It requires
an explicit understanding of the tip-sharing policy to make that
allegation. It is possible that Plaintiffs only recently noticed
that their pay was being adjusted up or down based on tip-sharing,
and that they only then investigated and discovered the tip-
sharing policy. The Court will therefore give leave to amend to
allege facts as to when Defendant began redistributing tips and
when Defendant first informed Plaintiffs of the policy. Plaintiffs
also have not alleged that they are paid less than the minimum
wage before tips. Absent such an allegation, and assuming
Plaintiffs had notice of the tip-sharing policy, the FLSA claim
necessarily fails regardless of whether non-customarily-tipped
employees such as managers participate in the tip pool.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend the FLSA claim to
allege that Defendant did not pay the federal minimum wage before
tips during the relevant time periods. Plaintiffs must allege upon
amendment that their tips were being taken before Defendant
informed them of the tip-sharing policy and/or that they did not
make the federal minimum wage before tips. The Court will not
dismiss based on arbitration requirements that Defendant argues
apply, because no such requirements appear on the face of the
Complaint or any document attached thereto. Nor will the Court
dismiss based on Defendant's argument that it has no successor
liability from Light Group, LLC. Plaintiffs have sufficiently
alleged in at least two places in the Complaint that Light Group,
LLC is simply Defendant's former name.

In any case, Plaintiffs appear to allege that the violation is
ongoing and therefore that at least some portion of the violation
has occurred under Defendant's operation/ownership of the Light
Nightclub even if it was formerly owned or operated by Light
Group, LLC with no successor liability. Those issues are for
summary judgment or trial.

Andre M. Lagomarsino, Esq. and Rebekah L Rini, Esq. of Lagomarsino
Law serve as counsel for Plaintiff Christopher Johnson

Landon Lerner, Esq. and Moorea L Katz, Esq. -- katzmo@gtlaw.com --
of Greenberg Traurig, LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Hakkasan
Holdings LLC


HAMILTON CENTER: Indiana Judge Tosses "Malone" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case CARLTON D. MALONE, Plaintiff, v. HAMILTON CENTER,
INC., Defendant, Cause No. 2:14-cv-332-WTL-WGH, (S.D. Ind.),
District Judge William T. Lawrence granted Defendant's motion for
summary judgment and Plaintiff's motion for the court to accept
his belated opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

Hamilton Center is a regional behavioral health system that
provides mental health services to children, adolescents, and
adults. In October 2013, Hamilton Center posted an opening and
began accepting applications for a part-time Administrative
Assistant position. Hamilton Center received more than eighty
applications for this position. Hamilton Center employees Kay
Skinner and Angel Fisher decided which applicants to interview and
eventually who to hire for the position. Skinner and Fisher
reviewed applications, first eliminating from consideration for
hire applicants who submitted incomplete applications, appeared to
have pay expectations above the position's pay range, or did not
express interest in a part-time position, and then next looking
for applicants to advance in the hiring process who appeared to
meet the minimum requirements and preferences of the position such
as typing skill, filing capability, skill in Word, Access, and
Excel, previous clerical experience, and work experience in human
resources.

Among the applicants was Karen Eldridge, whose application
indicated she would be willing to work part-time and in reception,
provided information about her clerical skills including typing
proficiency and speed, filing capabilities, ability to operate the
copy machine, and proficiency in Microsoft Office, and stated work
experience that included several years working as a Human
Resources Generalist for the Rockville Correctional Facility.
After conducting interviews, Skinner and Fisher decided that
Eldridge was the most qualified applicant and hired her for the
part-time Administrative Assistant position.

Malone submitted an application to Hamilton Center that sought
employment as an Administrative Assistant or Office Manager.
Hamilton Center did not have an Office Manager position open at
the time, and Malone's application was received on the day after
Hamilton Center concluded interviews for the Administrative
Assistant position. In addition, his application indicated
interest only in a full-time position (whereas the Administrative
Assistant position was part-time), and was incomplete in many
important respects -- for example, it did not list his employment
history or identify whether he had the desired clerical skills.
Malone was not called for an interview. Hamilton Center's
employment application did not ask for information regarding
applicants' age, race, or protected activities, and Malone did not
voluntarily disclose such information on his application or even
discuss his applications with anyone at Hamilton Center. Hamilton
Center's CEO Melvin Burks was not involved in the hiring process
for the positions for which Malone applied. Those who made the
decisions did not consider race, age, or engagement in protected
activity when reviewing applications or making the hiring
decisions.

Defendant moves for summary judgment, while Plaintiff moves to
accept his belated opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

In his Opinion dated January 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/GPSWnxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lawrence granted
Hamilton Center's motion for summary judgment as to all of
Malone's claims. Malone points to no evidence from which a
reasonable jury could determine that Burks had any knowledge of
Malone's applications for positions at Hamilton Center or any role
in the decision not to hire Malone. Indeed, during his deposition
he conceded that he had no evidence to support that assertion, but
rather "could only assume that he was involved in the hiring
process" because of his position as CEO. This speculation is not
sufficient to create an issue of material fact.

Malone also asserts that Hamilton Center did not hire him because
of his race and his age. Again, however, Malone points to no
evidence to support that claim, the Court continued. In his
deposition, he stated that the reason he believes he was
discriminated against on the basis of his race is that the people
who were hired for the positions instead of him were Caucasian (he
is African American). That fact, alone, is not sufficient to
support a race discrimination claim for several reasons, including
the fact that Malone has offered no evidence that the people who
were hired were otherwise similarly situated to him -- that is,
that he was equally qualified for each job as the person whom
Hamilton Center hired.

Similarly, the only reason Malone gives for believing that he was
not hired due to his age is his belief that "the average age of
individuals that are hired by Hamilton Center" is under 40. Malone
offers no evidence to support that allegation, and even if he did,
that fact, alone, would not be sufficient to support Malone's age
discrimination case. Hamilton Center has offered non-
discriminatory reasons -- supported by evidence -- why Malone was
not hired for the jobs for which he applied. Malone offers nothing
more than his own speculation that those reasons are false and
that he was, in fact, not hired because of his race, his age,
and/or his participation in protected activity. Accordingly, the
Hamilton Center is entitled to summary judgment on all of Malone's
claims.

Carlton D. Malone, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Craig M. Borowski, Esq. -- craig.borowski@FaegreBD.com -- and
Sarah Elizabeth Caldwell Breslin, Esq. --
sarah.breslin@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP serve as
counsel for Defendant Hamilton Center, Inc.


HEAD USA: Recalls Ski and Snowboard Helmets Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Head USA, of Boulder, Colo., announced a voluntary recall of about
260 Ski and snowboard helmets in the United States (in addition,
180 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The helmets do not comply with the impact requirements of safety
standards for helmets, posing a risk of head injury.

This recall involves six models of HEAD ski and snowboard helmets:
Agent, Alia, Andor, Arise, Arosa and Avril. They were sold in
sizes M/L and XL/XXL in black, blue, green white and yellow, with
straps in a variety of colors. HEAD, the model name, size and
"Production Code: Dec. 2014" are printed on stickers that can be
found by lifting the lining above the right earpiece.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/D9QXdJ

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Specialty ski and snowboard shops and online from January 2015
through December 2015 for between $80 and $120.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled helmets and
contact Head USA to receive a free replacement helmet.


HOME DEPOT: "Ramos" Suit Seeks Civil Penalties Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alma Ramos, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., and Does 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG15797737 (Cal. Super Ct.,
December 23, 2015), seeks to recover all civil penalties
available, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, for
Defendants' violations of Industrial Welfare Commission Order,
Labor Code, and Private Attorneys General Act.

Defendant Home Depot is a Delaware corporation doing business in
California. The Company's line of business includes purchasing,
selling, or distributing goods or commodities at wholesale or
retail. Home Depot is a national home improvement specialty
retailer and employer that operates more than 200 retail stores in
California, including in Alameda County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harvey Sohnen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SOHNEN & KELLY
          2 Theatre Square, Suite 230
          Orinda, CA 94563ú3346
          Telephone: (925)258ú9300 ú
          Facsimile: (925) 258-9315
          E-mail: hsohnen@sohnenandkelly.com

               - and -

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Jeff Geraci, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 290
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595 3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595 3000
          E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
                  dkhoury@ckslaw.com
                  jgeraci@ckslaw.com
                  msinger@ckslaw.com


ICON CABLE: "Otgonbileg" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enkhtulga Otgonbileg, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Icon Cable, Inc. and
Shawn Johnson, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00056 (D. Col.,
January 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Colorado Minimum Wage
of Workers Act.

Icon Cable is a registered domestic corporation with a principal
address at Denver, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          595 Canyon Boulevard
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (303) 440 8780
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Ceiling Lamps Due to Laceration Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa, announced a
voluntary recall of about 840,000 Ceiling lamps (in addition,
about 427,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The plastic retaining clips that secure the glass shades to the
lamp housings can break and allow the glass shades to fall, posing
a laceration hazard.

This recall involves Ikea HYBY and LOCK ceiling lamps. The lamps
have domed white frosted glass shades and three plastic clips that
attach the shade to steel electrical lamp housings. The HYBY has a
shade that is 15 inches in diameter and decorated with four opaque
concentric lines. The lamp housing holds two light bulbs. The LOCK
has a shade that is 10 inches in diameter. The lamp housing holds
one light bulb. Type number and the model name of the lamps are on
a label attached to the electrical lamp housing. The HYBY is type
number T1011 and the LOCK is type number T0201.

Ikea has received 224 reports of incidents worldwide of retaining
clips breaking and glass shades falling from the lamps, including
with 11 injuries. Three incidents with no injuries were reported
in the U.S.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/iipIQh

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at IKEA
stores worldwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from October 2012
through January 2016 for about $13 for the HYBY ceiling lamp, and
from November 2002 through January 2016 for about $5 for the LOCK
ceiling lamp.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ceiling
lamps, uninstall them and return them to any IKEA store for a full
refund.


J-W WIRELINE CO: "Tindell" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Tindell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J-W Wireline Company and FTS International
Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-02840-PAB (D. Colo.,
December 31, 2015), seeks overtime compensation, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act.

Sean Tindell worked in the oilfields in Texas and Colorado,
operating tools and equipment used in fracking oil and gas wells.
He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without
overtime compensation.

J-W Wireline Company and FTS International Services, LLC exist
under and by virtue of the laws of Texas, registered to do
business in the State of Colorado. It provides products and
services in the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


JOHNSON OUTDOORS: Recalls Dive Computers Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Johnson Outdoors Diving LLC, of El Cajon, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,500 Galileo Luna and Sol Dive
Computers. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

A short circuit allows the dive computer's screen to freeze or
display inaccurate information, posing a risk of serious injury to
a diver underwater, including decompression sickness.

The recall includes the 2015 models of UWATEC Galileo Luna and Sol
dive computers. Only dive computers with the following serial
numbers are included in the recall.Galileo LUNA dive computers
have serial numbers 150422 0058 001 to 150903 0338 005 and Galileo
SOL dive computers have serial numbers 150423 0202 001 to 150921
0001 005. The serial number is stamped on the back of the computer
and printed on a label on the product packaging.
Incidents/Injuries

Scubapro has received three reports of the dive computer screens
freezing. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/4nvfG7

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at
Authorized Scubapro dealers nationwide from May 2015 through
January 2016 for between $700 and $1,200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dive
computers and contact Scubapro to arrange for a free replacement
dive computer.


KDF AUTOMOTIVE: Ruling Vacated Due to Latest Case Law Decision
--------------------------------------------------------------
Acting Presiding Justice Alex C. McDonald of the Court of Appeals
of California, Fourth District, Division One, reversed a trial
court order and remanded the case WILLIAM GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. KDF AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., Defendant and
Appellant, No. D060269 (Cal. Ct. App.)

KDF Automotive Group, Inc. appeals from an order denying its
petition to compel arbitration of the action filed against it by
plaintiff William Goodridge arising out of his purchase of a used
automobile from KDF.

On appeal, KDF contends the trial court erred by concluding the
arbitration clause in the purchase contract was unconscionable and
therefore unenforceable.

On August 24, 2012, the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth
District, Division One, made its initial opinion in the case,
concluding the arbitration clause was procedurally and
substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable, and
affirming the order denying the petition to compel arbitration.

On December 19, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted review
of the Goodridge case and deferred further action pending its
decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2011).  On
August 3, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in
Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2015), which concluded the
arbitration clause was not unconscionable and was therefore
enforceable.

The California Supreme Court transferred the Goodridge case back
to the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division
One with directions to vacate the decision and reconsider it in
light of Sanchez.  The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth
District, Division One, requested the parties to file supplemental
letter briefs discussing the effect of Sanchez on the Goodridge
case. The parties filed, and Goodridge argues that KDF waived its
right to enforce the arbitration clause.

Acting Presiding Justice McDonald reversed the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division One's order and remanded the
case with directions that the trial court vacate its order and
issue a new order granting KDF's motion to compel arbitration.

A copy of Acting Presiding Justice McDonald's unpublished opinion
dated January 12, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/D2lkhCfrom
Leagle.com.

David R. Sidran -- dsidran@toschisidran.com -- Thomas M. Crowell
-- tcrowell@toschisidran.com -- at Toschi, Sidran, Collins &
Doyle, for Defendant and Appellant

Hallen D. Rosner -- halrosner@aol.com -- Christopher P. Barry --
hawk@rbblawgroup.com -- Angela J. Patrick -- at Rosner, Barry &
Babbitt for Plaintiff and Respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One
panel consists of Presiding Justice Alex C. McDonald and Justices
Terry B. O'Rourke and Joan Irion


KHS AMERICA: Recalls Children's Musical Instrument Due to Lead
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
KHS America of Mt. Juliet, Tenn, announced a voluntary recall of
about 150 Monkey Glockenspiel. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pink metal note bar on the glockenspiel may contain excessive
levels of lead in the paint, violating the federal lead paint
standard. If the paint is scraped off and ingested lead can cause
adverse health effects.

The Green Tones 8-note Monkey Glockenspiel is a children's musical
instrument with eight metal bars in multiple colors mounted on a
wooden base shaped like a monkey. The bars are individually
attached to the base with one screw at each end. The second bar
from the top is pink, 3.5 inches long and has a "B" stamped on it.
This is the bar that needs to be replaced. The Green Tones logo is
stamped on the back of the glockenspiel and the tracking number
HS0178410914 is printed in black at the bottom.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/UlVnzM

The recalled products were manufactured in Israel and sold at
Independent toy and music retailers and online at amazon.com and
gogreentones.com from January 2015 through September 2015 for
about $40.

Consumers should immediately remove the pink bar from the
glockenspiel and contact KHS America for information on getting a
free replacement pink bar.


LANE BRYANT: Violates Cal. Labor Code, "Hatcher" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Hatcher, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of all other "aggrieved"
employees, the Plaintiff, v. Lane Bryant, Inc., individually, and
DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. 15CV289446 (Cal. State Ct.,
December 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid meal and rest break
compensation, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief,
restitution, and disgorgement of all wages, and money owed to
Plaintiffs, pursuant to the Labor Code, California Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order, and Business & Professions Code.

Lane Bryant operates as a retailer of apparel and lingerie for
women in the United States and internationally. It offers tops,
such as knitted tops, tees, shirts and blouses, camis and tanks,
ponchos, jackets and coats, and tunics; and cardigans, and elbow
and long sleeve sweaters. The company also provides jeans and
pants, including tights, leggings, socks, career pants, petite
pants and jeans, tall pants, and capris and shorts. The Company is
based in Margate, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allan Schimeel, Esq.
          Michael Parks, Esq.
          Stacey R. Cutting, Esq.
          SCHIMMEL AND PARKS, APLC.
          15303 Ventura Blvd. Suite 650
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 464 5061
          Facsimile: (818) 464 5091


LIBERTY BROADBAND: "Cohen" Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Liberty Broadband Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2016,
that the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 11, 2016, entered a
stipulated order regarding notice of the proposed dismissal (the
"Proposed Dismissal") of all claims in the putative class action
captioned Belle Cohen v. John C. Malone et al., C.A. No. 11416-VCG
(the "Class Action").  The order requires Liberty Broadband
Corporation (the "Company") to provide notice of the Proposed
Dismissal and certain other information to the Company's
stockholders by way of this Form 8-K.

On August 11, 2015, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Proxy
Statement") for the Company's special meeting of stockholders to
be held on September 23, 2015.  At the special meeting,
stockholders were asked to vote on a proposal to approve the
issuance of shares of the Company's Series C common stock pursuant
to the terms of certain amended and restated investment agreements
entered into by the Company with various investors and an amended
and restated assignment and assumption of investment agreement
entered into by the Company, among others.  The Class Action
alleged that the Proxy Statement omitted material facts.

On September 11, 2015, the Company filed a supplement to the Proxy
Statement containing certain supplemental disclosures (the
"Supplemental Disclosures").  Counsel for the Class Action
plaintiff thereafter advised that because the Supplemental
Disclosures mooted the claims in the Class Action, Plaintiff
intended to dismiss the suit.  As a result of the parties'
subsequent negotiations, the Company has agreed to pay Plaintiff's
counsel a fee in the amount of $450,000 for the benefits conferred
on the Company's stockholders by the Supplemental Disclosures (the
"Agreed Fee").  Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel have determined
that the Agreed Fee is reasonable compensation for the benefits
conferred, and Plaintiff's counsel has accordingly agreed that
there is no need to petition the Court for a fee award.

The Plaintiff has determined to dismiss the complaint in the Class
Action with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff only because
Plaintiff has determined that the Supplemental Disclosures mooted
Plaintiff's claims.

A copy of the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Notice of
Dismissal is available at 1.usa.gov/1UG8CGT

The case is, BELLE COHEN, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated stockholders of LIBERTY BROADBAND CORPORATION,
Plaintiff, v. JOHN C. MALONE, GREGORY B. MAFFEI, RICHARD R. GREEN,
J. DAVID WARGO, JOHN E. WELSH III, and LIBERTY BROADBAND
CORPORATION, Defendants, C.A. No. 11416-VCG (Del. Ch.).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
     Craig J. Springer, Esq.
     ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
     3801 Kennett Pike
     Building C, Suite 305
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Tel: (302) 504-4957

Attorneys for Defendants:

     Donald J. Wolfe, Jr., Esq.
     Michael A. Pittenger, Esq.
     Brian C. Ralston, Esq.
     POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
     Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
     1313 N. Market Street
     P.O. Box 951
     Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
     Tel: (302) 984-6000


LIONS GATE: Consolidated Securities Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge John G. Koeltl granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case, IN RE LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT CORP.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Nos. 14-cv-5477 (JGK), 14-cv-5197 (JGK),
(S.D.N.Y.)

This is a consolidated securities action brought on behalf of a
proposed class of shareholders of common stock of Lions Gate
Entertainment Corporation. The lead Plaintiff, KBC Asset
Management NV, together with two additional Plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on April 1, 2015. The Plaintiffs
asserted violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) (the Exchange Act), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, against
Lions Gate and four senior executives of the Company. The
Plaintiffs also asserted control person liability under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a), against the
individual Defendants.

The SAC alleges that the Company and the individual Defendants
were aware of an active Securities and Exchange Commissions
investigation into certain corporate transactions allegedly
structured to prevent a minority investor from gaining control of
the Company. The Company had allegedly misrepresented the
transactions in the summer of 2010 when they occurred. Eventually,
the Company settled with the SEC and agreed to pay a civil penalty
of $7.5 million in March 2014. The Plaintiffs allege that the
failure to disclose the SEC investigation and possible settlement
was a violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5.

The Defendants move to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In his Opinion and Order dated January 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/lILjCqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Koeltl granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court has considered all of the
remaining arguments of the parties. To the extent not specifically
addressed, they are either moot or without merit.

Judge Koeltl said the complaint does not allege facts supporting a
strong inference of scienter with respect to any Defendant.
Several factors including the disclosure of the general and
administrative expense accrual related to the SEC investigation,
the small civil penalty the SEC imposed relative to the Company's
net assets, the uncertainty of whether the Commission would move
forward with the proceedings against Lions Gate, and the fact the
Commission never brought charges against individual officers or
directors support an inference against scienter that is far
stronger than the competing inference that the Plaintiffs suggest.
The more cogent inference is that Lions Gate did not specifically
disclose the investigation until the settlement had been concluded
because it did not believe that there was a requirement to do so.
Thus, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege the requisite scienter
necessary to sustain an action for securities fraud under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5. In this case, the Plaintiffs have not
alleged a primary violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the first element
of a Section 20(a) claim, and that claim must also be dismissed.

Rebecca M Katz, Esq. -- rkatz@motleyrice.com -- William H.
Narwold, Esq. -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- James M. Hughes, Esq.
-- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- and William Stephen Norton, Esq. --
bnorton@motleyrice.com -- of Motley Rice LLC serve as counsel for
Plaintiff KBC Asset Management NV

George T Conway, III, Esq. -- GTConway@wlrk.com -- and Adam Sloan
Hobson, Esq. -- ASHobson@wlrk.com -- of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &
Katz serve as counsel for Defendant Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.


LOUISIANA CLEANING SYSTEMS: "French" Suit Seeks Wage & OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher French, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Louisiana Cleaning Systems Inc.
Charles Nugent and The Scott Fetzer Company d/b/a The Kirby
Company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00277 (E.D. La., January
11, 2016), seeks to recover injunctive and declaratory relief
against defendants' unlawful actions, compensation for, unpaid
minimum wages and overtime pay, penalty wages, liquidated damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Louisiana Cleaning Systems was established in 2013 and is based in
Kenner, Louisiana. The Company has an annual revenue of $59,000
and employs a staff of approximately 1.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica M. Vasquez, Esq.,
          VASQUEZ LAW OFFICE
          650 Poydras Street, Ste. 1414
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 571 9582
          Facsimile: (504) 684 1449
          Email: jvasquez@vasquezlawoffice.com


LTD FINANCIAL: Court Accepts Notice of Supplemental Authority
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith denied the Defendant's motion to
strike Plaintiff's notice of filing supplemental authority and
request for attorney's fees in the case, LIZNELIA BAEZ, Plaintiff,
v. LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., Defendant, Case No. Case No.
6:15-cv-1043-Orl-40TBS, (M.D. Fla.)

This putative class action concerns Defendant's alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et
seq.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and Defendant
filed a response in opposition to the motion. Then, without leave
of Court, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental
Authority in which she directs the Court's attention to McMahon v.
LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 15-8018, 2015 WL 8119786 (7th Cir. Dec. 8,
2015).  After citing the case, Plaintiff summarized the facts,
quoted pertinent language from the opinion, and concluded: "In
sum, McMahon supports Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Accordingly, Plaintiff requests the Court take notice of McMahon
on grounds that it was entered after the briefing in this case was
closed."

In his Order dated January 27, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/zNZ5z7from Leagle.com, Judge Smith denied
Defendant's motion to strike. The Court accepts Plaintiff's notice
of supplemental authority but will ignore Plaintiff's summation of
the authority and argument. This should alleviate Defendant's
concerns about unfair prejudice, as well as the technical need to
strike the notice, the judge said. The purpose of a notice of
supplemental authority is to inform the Court of recent
developments in the law that is germane to an issue the Court is
being asked to decide. Plaintiff's notice goes further, and argues
that the decision in McMahon supports the relief she is seeking.
Still, the short case summary and argument did not warrant a
motion to strike that was eight pages long plus exhibits, and it
certainly does not warrant sanctions under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927.
No reasonable person would believe Plaintiff's improper argument
will have any meaningful influence on the Court's decision. Both
Plaintiff's unauthorized argument and the motion to strike were
therefore, wastes of time.

Brian W. Warwick, Esq. -- bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- Janet
R. Varnell, Esq. -- jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com -- and Steven
Thomas Simmons, Jr., Esq. of Varnell & Warwick, PA and Michael
Tierney, Esq. of Michael Tierney, PA serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Liznelia Baez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated

Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. -- braslavich@gsgfirm.com -- and Dale
Thomas Golden, Esq. -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- of Golden Scaz
Gagain, PLLC serve as counsel for Defendant LTD Financial
Services, L.P., a Texas Corporation


LTD RESTAURANT: "Lozano" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Lozano, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. L.T.D. Restaurant, Inc.
and Steve Zervakis, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00022 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division, January 4, 2016), seeks
recovery of overtime wages, statutory damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS Sec. 105/1 et seq.

Blueberry Hill is an Illinois corporation operating a restaurant
called Blueberry Hill Breakfast Cafe located at 2155 West 183rd
St., Homewood, Illinois.

Lozano's duties include cooking, cleaning, washing dishes and as a
busboy at Defendants' restaurant. He claims to have worked between
48-50 hours per week without overtime premium.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: (312) 800-1017
      Email: ralicea@yourclg.com


LUTRON ELECTRONICS: Recalls 30,000 Roller Shades
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lutron Electronics Co. Inc., of Coopersburg, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 30,000 Roller Shades (in addition about
5,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The window shades can become dislodged from their brackets and
fall, posing an impact hazard.

This recall involves custom-ordered made-to-measure Serena(R) and
SIVOIA QS TRIATHLON(R) roller shades with the following model
numbers:

QSFRJ-S2A13-B; QSFRJ-S2A13-BN; QSFRJ-S2A13-PS; QSFRJ-S2A13-PSN;
SYRJ-S2A13-B; SYRJ-S2A13-BN; SYRJ-S2A13-PS; SYRJ-S2A13-PSN; SMR-
S2A13; SMR-S2A13-N

The model numbers are printed on a white label located on the
shade battery rail, the equivalent support backbone for plug-in &
manual shades, or on the inside of the shade fabric wrapped head
rail or valance (fascia). Affected shades have the following date
codes:  W45 - Y46.  These codes can also be found on the white
label on the side of the head rail.  The letter represents the
year and the number represents that week of the year (W = 2013, X
= 2014, Y = 2015).  For example, the code Y46 is for the
manufacturing week ending on Friday 11/13/2015.  The label on
affected shades also contains a product family name at the top of
the label -- either "Serena" or "Sivoia QS Triathlon."  The
majority of the shades are battery-operated and controlled by a
Lutron remote control. Some of the models are plug-in and some are
manual. All of the models are cordless.

Lutron Electronics has received 36 reports of incidents of shades
falling from mounting brackets. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/kzCPFs

The recalled products were manufactured in Unites States and sold
at Home Depot, Lowes, specialty window shading dealers and online
at SerenaShades.com from November 2013 through November 2015 for
between $280 and $2,400.

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.


LVNV FUNDING: Judge Keeps Class Cert. Ruling in "Mitchell"
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Theresa L. Springmann denied the Defendant's motion
for reconsideration of an order granting class certification in
the case, MARY MITCHELL on behalf of Plaintiff and the class
defined herein, Plaintiff, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC; RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES, L.P., and ALEGIS GROUP LLC, Defendants, Cause No. 2:12-
CV-523-TLS, (N.D. Ind.)

Mary Mitchell brought a putative class action against LVNV
Funding, LLC (LVNV), Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. (Resurgent),
and Alegis Group LLC (Alegis), asserting violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e
and 1692f, arising out of dunning letters sent to the Plaintiff
and the proposed class. On November 10, 2015, the Court granted
class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3).

Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Defendants
argued that individual issues of causation will predominate over
class issues; specifically, the individualized determinations as
to why a particular class member made a payment or took other
action in response to the offers of settlement. The Defendants
asserted that a series of mini-trials will be needed to determine
class membership. The Defendants also contended that the Court's
proposed solution to handling the question of causation with
respect to actual damages -- through the use of interrogatories --
was not raised by the parties' briefs and would deprive them of
their due process rights.

In her Response to the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, the
Plaintiff maintains that the proposed solution was discussed, and
that the solution does not deprive the Defendants the opportunity
to challenge each class member's claim to recovery during the
damages phase. Additionally, and more importantly, the
appropriateness of certifying the class was recently confirmed by
the Seventh Circuit in a case that raised the same issues that are
presented in Mitchell's case.  That Seventh Circuit case is
McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 807 F.3d 872, 873 (7th Cir. 2015),
wherein the appeals court held that the district court's decision
to deny class certification was erroneous and thus remanding to
the district court for further proceedings on the class
allegations.

In her Opinion and Order dated January 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/GYQhF0from Leagle.com, Judge Springmann agreed that
McMahon is dispositive and denied Defendant's motion for
reconsideration.

The Court directed the parties to file by February 5, 2016, a
notice of agreed, proposed deadlines for filing summary judgment
motions and producing the class list.

According to Judge Springmann, even if a reason apart from the
deceptive or confusing content of the letters is found to be a
basis for payment, those class members would still be entitled to
recover statutory damages. Despite individualized issues that may
exist related to damages, adjudicating the legal issue -- whether
the letters violate the FDCPA -- will significantly advance the
litigation and achieve economies of time and expense. The Court
does not find that any of the Defendants' arguments warrant
reconsidering its Order and decertifying the class.

Cathleen M Combs, Esq. Daniel A Edelman, Esq. James O Latturner,
Esq. and Tiffany N Hardy, Esq. of Edelman Combs Latturner &
Goodwin LLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Mary Mitchell

David M Schultz, Esq. -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Nabil G
Foster, Esq. -- nfoster@hinshawlaw.com -- Patrick P Devine, Esq.
-- and Jennifer W Weller, Esq. -- jweller@hinshawlaw.com -- of
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP serve as counsel for Defendant LVNV
Funding LLC


LYFT: Judge to Hear Class Action Settlement Motion on Feb. 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Lazarus, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
representatives of ride-sharing company Lyft will be in federal
court in San Francisco, where a judge on Feb. 18 will hear its
motion for settlement of a lawsuit accusing it of misclassifying
drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.  Lyft
has agreed to pay $12.25 million to settle the class-action
lawsuit filed in 2013. The settlement would provide payments to an
estimated 100,000 California Lyft drivers if approved by the
judge.


M&T BANK: Hudson City Violated Securities Laws, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
M&T Bank Corporation said in its Form 8-K/A Current Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 15, 2016,
that a class action lawsuit was filed on October 7, 2015, against
M&T, Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. and their boards of directors in
the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware. The complaint
alleges that Hudson City Bancorp violated the federal securities
laws and that that holders of record who were entitled to vote at
Hudson City Bancorp's April 18, 2013 annual meeting of
shareholders were harmed due to the nondisclosure of certain
information regarding the proposed Merger between M&T and Hudson.
Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
Hudson City Bancorp failed to disclose that the M&T representation
in the parties' Merger Agreement that all so-called BSA/AML laws
had been complied with was false; that M&T was at high risk of
regulatory action; that Hudson City Bancorp was at risk as it was
required to put its Strategic Plan on hold; that Hudson City
Bancorp's dividend was at risk due to the pending Merger and that
the Merger consideration did not account for these regulatory
risks. The plaintiffs have requested compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees. Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other
defendants deny all of the allegations in the complaint.


MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE: Settlement in "Karic" Wins Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eric N. Vitaliano granted Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary judicial approval of a proposed settlement in the case
SLOBODAN KARIC, CLARIBEL GARCIA, STEVEN JONES, LJUBOMIR ZIVANOVIC,
DANIEL COLON, WILLIAM CHATMAN, and GORAN STANIC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES, INC., MAJOR UNIVERSE, INC., d/b/a
Major World Ford Lincoln Mercury, MAJOR CHEVROLET GEO, MAJOR
CHEVROLET, INC., MAJOR CHYRSLER JEEP DODGE, INC., MAJOR MOTORS OF
LONG ISLAN CITY, INC., d/b/a Major Kia, MAJOR MOTORS OF THE FIVE
TOWNS, INC., MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE REALTY CORP., HAROLD BENDELL, BRUCE
BENDELL, and CHRIS ORSARIS, Defendants, No. 09 Civ. 5708 (ENV)
(CLP), (E.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the New
York Labor Law (NYLL), N.Y. Lab. Law Section 650 et seq., by
failing to, inter alia, pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated
sales representatives the proper minimum wage and premium overtime
wages. Plaintiffs moved for (1) preliminary judicial approval of a
proposed settlement concerning the NYLL claims, which are the sole
remaining claims in this litigation,1 (2) conditional
certification of the settlement class, (3) appointment of
Plaintiffs' counsel, Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, as class counsel,
(4) approval of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and
Claim Form and Release to be mailed to class members, and (5)
approval of Plaintiffs' proposed schedule for providing notice and
seeking final settlement approval.

Defendants do not oppose the motion, nor do they oppose
conditional certification for purposes of settlement only.

The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak, who
issued her Report and Recommendation on December 22, 2015.

In his Memorandum and Order dated January 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/G6OL3nfrom Leagle.com, Judge Vitaliano granted
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary judicial approval of the
settlement in all respects except as to the notice of claims,
which the Court wants modified.

In an abundance of caution, though, the Court will require the
parties to amend the proposed Claim Form and Release with respect
to the second paragraph, which begins, "My signature below
constitutes a full and complete release and discharge . . ." will
instead read, "Effective final judicial approval of the proposed
settlement agreement, my signature below will constitute a full
and complete release and discharge. . . ." This revision will
conform the release to the proposed settlement, which states that
should the parties fail to obtain final judicial approval, "the
Litigation will proceed as if no settlement had been attempted."

Judge Vitaliano again refers the matter to Magistrate Judge Pollak
to conduct the fairness hearing and to make a report and
recommendation as to her findings concerning plaintiffs' motion
for final settlement approval.  The parties are to promptly
request a date for the fairness hearing, so that this scheduling
information may be included in Sec. 14 of the Notice of Proposed
Class Action Settlement.

Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. Eric Joshua Gitig, Esq. --
eric.gitig@jacksonlewis.com -- Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Esq. --
fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com -- and Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. of
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP and Lee Squitieri, Esq. --
lee@sfclasslaw.com -- of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP serve as counsel
for Plaintiff Slobodan Karic

Garry T Stevens, Jr., Esq. and Lee Squitieri, Esq. --
lee@sfclasslaw.com -- of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP and Steven J.
Harfenist, Esq. -- sharfenist@hkplaw.com -- of Harfenist Kraut &
Perlstein, LLP serve as counsel for Defendant The Major Automotive
Companies, Inc.


MDL 1917: Video Display Files Claim in CRT Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Video Display Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that on December 8,
2015 the Company entered a claim in the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)
Antitrust Litigation class action case. Deadline for claims to be
submitted was December 10, 2015. The Company does not know the
amount that could potentially be awarded to the Company. The
Plaintiff's attorneys expect payments could be distributed as
early as the summer of 2016.


MESSA & ASSOCIATES: "Vollmer" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Vollmer, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Joseph L. Messa, Jr. & Associates and
Messa & Associates, P.C. Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00002-CMR
(E.D. Pa., January 1, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime/wages,
liquidated and punitive damages, back and front pay, interest,
attorney's fees and costs and such other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq., Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, 43 P.S. Sec. 333.101, et seq. and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. Sec. 260.1,
et seq.

Vollmer worked as a legal secretary, assistant and paralegal for
Messa from approximately February 19, 2014 through March 14, 2015.
She regularly worked more than 40 hours each week without
receiving overtime premium. She claims she was illegally
terminated for raising such complaints.

Messa is a personal injury law firm with offices located in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It represents injured individuals and
their families in cases involving medical malpractice, product
liability, catastrophic injury, motor vehicle accidents, brain
injury, birth injury, and burns, fires and explosions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott M. Pollins, Esq.
      800 Westdale Avenue
      Swarthmore, PA 19081-2311
      Tel: (610) 896-9909
      Fax: (610) 896-9910 (fax)
      Email: scott@pollinslaw.com


MICHIGAN: Judge Narrows Claims in "Unan" Suit vs. Health Dept
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marianne O. Battani of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division ruled on the parties' motions in the
case AELEN UNAN and PATRICIA QUINTINO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NICK LYON, in his
official capacity as DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
HEALTH and DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-13470 (E.D. Mich.)

Beginning January 2014, many Medicaid applicants were erroneously
assigned to or reverted to ESO Medicaid. By April 14, 2014, the
Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) had identified the
problem and had begun working on a solution. DHS invited the
Center for Civil Justice (CCJ), to refer misassigned applications
to them for correction on a case-by-case basis.

Plaintiffs Aelen Unan and Patricia Quintino are lawfully
immigrated refugee and a permanent resident alien. Both applied to
receive Medicaid benefits in April and May of 2014, and both
received Health Care Coverage Determination Notices approving them
for Emergency Services Only (ESO) but not for comprehensive
Medicaid coverage. The notices did not explicitly state that
comprehensive coverage had been denied, only that plaintiffs were
eligible for ESO benefits, which only provides coverage for
emergency room treatment for life threatening conditions.

Defendant Nick Lyon admits that the implementation of the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) caused defects in the computer system
that processes Medicaid applications, potentially affecting tens
of thousands of applications. Presently, it is DHS's position that
it has successfully eliminated any systemic misclassification
problems, attributing any further errors to worker error.

However, plaintiffs insist that there continue to be systemic
problems and that many Medicaid applicants erroneously assigned to
ESO benefits remain unidentified.

On September 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a complaint, as well as a
motion to certify class and a motion for preliminary injunction
Plaintiffs primarily requests declaratory judgment that defendants
have wrongfully denied comprehensive Medicaid, to enjoin
defendants from denying comprehensive Medicaid to the plaintiffs
and to the putative class members, to enjoin defendants from
failing to identify individuals entitled to comprehensive benefits
without following the appropriate administrative and federal
procedures for processing applications and to enjoin defendants
from assigning applicants to ESO Medicaid without adequate notice
and meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Plaintiffs seek an order of summary judgment granting declaratory
and injunctive relief.  Meanwhile, defendant Nick Lyon, Director
of the Michigan Department of Community Health and the Michigan
Department of Human Services, seeks summary judgment and dismissal
of the case.  Additionally, he seeks to strike plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment for failure to comply with the page
limitation.

Judge Battani granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and
denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, denied defendant's
motion to strike plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
strikes Exhibit A from plaintiffs' motion. Additionally, the court
dismisses plaintiffs' motion to certify class and motion for
preliminary injunction as moot.

A copy of Judge Battani's opinion and order dated January 11,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/uou4hVfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Anna Marie Hill, Esq.
     Susan E. Reed, Esq.
     Michigan Immigrant Rights Center/
         Michigan Poverty Law Program
     220 E. Huron Street, Suite 600A
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Telephone: 734-239-6863
     Facsimile: 734-998-9125


MICROSOFT CORP: Recalls AC Power Cords Due to Shock Hazards
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Microsoft Corp., of Redmond, Wash, announced a voluntary recall of
about 2.25 million AC Power cords (in addition, about 190,000 were
sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The power cords can overheat, posing fire or shock hazards.

This recall involves AC power cords sold with Microsoft Surface
Pro, Surface Pro 2 and Surface Pro 3 computers before March 15,
2015. Surface Pro and Surface Pro 2 devices have a black case with
the product name on the back of the device toward the bottom.
Surface Pro 3 computers have a silver case with "Windows 8 Pro" on
the back of the device under the kickstand. This recall also
involves accessory power supply units that include an AC power
cord sold separately before March 15, 2015. The recalled power
cords do not have a 1/8-inch sleeve on the cord on the end that
connects to the power supply.

Microsoft has received 56 reports of AC cords overheating and
emitting flames and five reports of electrical shock to consumers.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/PP55GY

The recalled products were manufactured in China, Taiwan, U.K. and
sold at Microsoft stores, Best Buy, Costco and other stores
nationwide, and online at www.microsoft.com, from February 2013
through March 15, 2015 for between $800 and $2,000 for the Surface
Pro computer and between $64 and $80 for the power supply unit
sold separately.

Consumers should unplug and stop using the recalled power cords
and contact Microsoft for a free replacement AC power cord.


MISTRAS GROUP: Defending Employee Class Suits in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mistras Group, Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits
filed by current and former employees of the Company, Mistras said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
November 30, 2015.

In April 2015, two separate lawsuits were filed in California as
purported class action lawsuits on behalf of current and former
Mistras employees. The cases are David Kruger v Mistras Group,
Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California and Edgar Viceral v Mistras Group, et al, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Both cases were originally filed in California state court and
were removed to the respective U.S. District Courts for the
districts in which the state court cases were filed. These two
cases have been consolidated, with Kruger dismissing his case and
joining the Viceral case. As part of this consolidation, the
claims in the Kruger case that were not part of the Viceral case
were added to the Viceral case by the filing of an amended
complaint. The consolidated case alleges violations of California
statutes primarily, the California Labor Code, and seeks to
proceed as a collective action under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards
Act. The case is predicated on claims for allegedly missed rest
and meal periods, inaccurate wage statements, and failure to pay
all wages due, as well as related unfair business practices, and
is requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, and
various fines and penalties available under California law. The
case is in the preliminary stages.

The Company is currently unable to determine the likely outcome or
reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential liability, if
any, related to these matters, and accordingly, has not
established any reserves for these matters.


MJ BAGEL INC: "Camas" Suit Seeks Damages, Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Camas, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MJ Bagel Inc., 323 Smith
Bagels Inc., and James Geritano, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00138-LDH-RLM (E.D.N.Y., December January 11, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney fees and costs, and all other appropriate
legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

MJ Bagel does business in the State of New York and is based in
Brooklyn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC
          2747 Coney Island Ave.
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 808 2224
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


MOL AMERICA: Elite Logistics Suit Fails to Obtain Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the captioned case ELITE LOGISTICS
CORPORATION and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MOL AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. CV 11-02952
DDP (PLAx), (C.D. Cal.)

Defendant MOL (America) Inc. is an international ocean carrier,
and transports cargo in shipping containers MOL owns. Independent
motor carriers, or truckers, such as Plaintiffs, transport MOL's
cargo containers from ports to inland distribution centers, then
return the empty containers to MOL at the port. MOL contracts with
the cargo owners, not with the truckers, for the overland
transport. The cargo owners, in turn, hire and pay the truckers.
Although cargo owners contract with MOL to transport containers to
the inland container yard, the independent truckers actually pick
up, transport, and return MOL's containers. The truckers are not,
however, parties to the transportation service contract between
MOL and the cargo owners. Nevertheless, when truckers are late
returning MOL's containers, MOL charges late fees to the truckers,
not to the contracting cargo owners. The truckers pay the late
fees, then in turn bill cargo owners for those fees. If a trucker
refuses to pay late fees to MOL, the trucker may be denied access
to shipping containers, essentially foreclosing the trucker from
doing business.

Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a putative class, that MOL
violated California Business and Professions Code Section 2298 and
breached a contract by charging late fees on weekends and
holidays. Plaintiffs now move to certify a damages class under
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) comprised of all intermodal motor
carriers who were charged and paid per diem and demurrage
detention charges in California for weekend days and holidays when
the ports were closed from April 7, 2007 to the present.

In his Order dated February 2, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/e562Unfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pregerson denied
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Granted, Elite
suffered harm when it was charged illegal late fees.  Judge
Pregerson said Elite's argument for a pass-on defense bar is
premised on the difficulty of apportioning ostensibly resultant
damages, such as "the negative competitive effects of charging
greater amounts to its customers." But that policy argument is
vitiated by the fact that Elite charged "greater amounts" to its
customers not merely because Elite itself incurred greater costs,
but because Elite wanted to profit by playing LG Electronics off
against MOL.

In late 2007, Elite's president and owner, Moon Chul Kang,
contested the amount of late fees MOL charged Elite for a shipment
to LG Electronics, and sought a discount.  MOL acceded to the
request and accepted Elite's payment of 60% of the assessed late
fees. Elite, however, then invoiced and received from LG
approximately 170% of the amount Elite paid to MOL. Thus, although
Elite did pay late fees to MOL, including some improperly assessed
late fees, Elite was not only reimbursed for those expenses, but
ultimately appears to have profited from the exchange.

Class certification should not be granted if there is a danger
that defenses unique to the putative class representative will
become a focus of the litigation. Here, at the very least,
questions regarding Elite's unclean hands would prove a
distraction, the Judge said.

David C Wright, Esq. -- dcw@mccunewright.com -- Jae Kook Kim, Esq.
-- jkk@mccunewright.com -- Kristy M Arevalo, Esq. --
kma@mccunewright.com -- and Richard D McCune, Jr, Esq. of McCune
Wright LLP and Edward J Chong, Esq. -- edlawla@gmail.com -- of Law
Offices of Edward J Chong and Associates serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Elite Logistics Corporation

Alisa Manasantivongs, Esq. -- AlisaM@fdw-law.com -- Erich P Wise,
Esq. -- erichw@fdw-law.com -- and Nicholas S Politis, Esq. of
Flynn Delich and Wise serve as counsel for Defendant Mol America,
Inc.


MONEYGRAM: Scam Victims to Get Compensation Under $13M Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hult, writing for Argus Leader, reports that people who were
targeted by scam artists who requested payments through MoneyGram
might be eligible for part of a $13 million settlement with the
U.S. Attorney of New York.  The money will go to states, which
will administer restitution to victims.  The company agreed to
beef up its anti-fraud monitoring for its services, which include
wire transfers, bill pay plans and transfers to pre-paid debit
cards.


MOTELS MISSION: Violates Cal Labor Code, "Lacanlale" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dolores Lacanlale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Motels Mission Serra, Inc., and Does
1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGCG-15-549599 (Cal.
Super Ct., December 24, 2015), seeks to recover compensation for
all hours worked; all penalties, liquidated damages, and other
damages permitted by law; restitution and/or disgorgement of all
benefits obtained by Defendants from their unlawful practices;
injunctive and declaratory relief; punitive damages, all forms of
equitable relief permitted by law; and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs, pursuant California Labor Code and California Business
and Professions Code.

The Motels Mission Serra was established in 2001 and is based in
Burlingame, California. The company has an estimated annual
revenue of $120,000 and employs a staff of approximately 2.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark E. Burton, Jr., Esq.
          HERSH & HERSH
          601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2080
          San Francisco, CA 914102
          Telephone: (415) 441 5544


NETWORK TELEPHONE: 9th Cir. Affirms District Court's Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the district court's denial of appellant's motion for class
certification in the case Paul Gannon, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Network
Telephone Services, Inc., a California corporation; Decade
Communications, Inc., a California corporation; Frontier Credit,
Inc., a California corporation; American Operator Services, Inc.,
a California corporation; Joseph Preston, individually; Gary
Passon, individually, Defendants-Appellees, No. 13-56813 (9th
Cir.)

Paul Gannon challenges the district court's denial of class
certification in his suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. Gannon's proposed class includes all
recipients of unauthorized text messages from Network Telephone
Services.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial on
appellant's motion for class certification.

A copy of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit's
memorandum dated January 12, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/JRBHfFfrom Leagle.com.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges Consuelo Maria Callahan, Andrew David Hurwitz
and Dean D. Pregerson.


NORTHERN MARIANA: Judge Balks at Governor's Inciting Words
----------------------------------------------------------
Ferdie De La Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that U.S.
District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands-designated Judge
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood on Feb. 12 stated that the court will
not allow inciting words from Gov. Ralph DLG. Torres pertaining to
payments of 25 percent pension benefits to retirees.

At an emergency hearing, Judge Tydingco-Gatewood read a news
article quoting Torres in a statement when he urged "all retirees
and settlement fund members to contact Ms. Joyce Tang and ask her
to stop playing games with your pensions."

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood said it appears that Torres was trying to
incite the Settlement Fund beneficiaries.

"It's not acceptable.  It's not appropriate. It's not right.  It's
not fair," the judge said during a telephonic hearing.

Ms. Tang is a Guam-based lawyer that the court appointed as
trustee for the Settlement Fund.

The emergency hearing was held after Ms. Tang requested to address
the issue of the Settlement Fund's continuing assistance and
accommodation to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
government in disbursing the 25 percent payments.

Acting governor Victor Hocog appeared in court with assistant
attorney general Teresita Sablan.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood ordered Mr. Hocog to meet with Settlement
Fund Trustee Tang and the counsel for Betty Johnson to come up
with a solution to the 25 percent issue.

The judge ordered the parties to appear at a status conference on
Feb. 19 at 8:30am.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood noted that the late governor Eloy S. Inos
had been very cooperative with the court and to the parties in
Betty Johnson's class action.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood said Mr. Inos worked very diligently when
they crafted the Settlement Fund agreement.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood said the court cannot accept this lack of
cooperation from Torres.

Mr. Hocog told the judge that he will uphold the settlement
agreement to meet the 75 percent as agreed upon in Johnson's class
action.

Mr. Hocog said he will further discuss the matter with the
Legislature.

"You can assure my words," Mr. Hocog said.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood asked Mr. Hocog to continue cooperating
and communicating with Settlement Fund Trustee Tang and Johnson's
counsel.

Ms. Tang said the government appropriated funds to pay the 25
percent pension payments from the casino license payments under
Public Law 18-56 (Casino Law).

Ms. Tang disclosed that this source has been exhausted as there is
no money available for the casino license fees paid by Best
Sunshine International, Ltd. with which to pay the 25 percent
pension payments for Fiscal Year 2016.

For FY 2016, Tang said, the government has to pass a law to
appropriate $1,529,874.66 for Tinian, $1,081,038.12 for Rota, and
$12,677,050.11 for Saipan to cover FY 2016 25 percent pension
payments.

Ms. Tang said the Settlement Fund processes the 25 percent
payments as an accommodation to the government.

The Settlement Fund calculates the 25 percent pension payments
each pension period and releases the funds after confirming the
money is funded, and that funding was properly appropriated under
NMI law.

"The Settlement Fund is an extension of the District Court, and
must uphold all laws," Ms. Tang said, adding that the Settlement
Fund cannot disburse money that was not properly appropriated.

Ms. Tang cited that during Inos' tenure, they communicated
regularly to work on these issues.

Unfortunately, she said, all her letters and calls to Torres on
Jan 29, 2016, and Feb. 10, 2016, went unanswered.

Ms. Tang said instead the government demanded that the Settlement
Fund release funds that were not appropriated for the 25 percent
pension payments.

On Feb. 12, Ms. Tang returned the 25 percent payment for Feb. 12,
2016 to the NMI Treasury.

Ms. Tang said a dispute has arisen because the government
disagrees with the position of the Settlement Fund, and continues
to demand that the Settlement Fund process funds that were not
appropriated.

Ms. Tang has refused to process funds that were not properly
appropriated for the 25 percent payment without a court order or
clear authorization under NMI law.

Since March 15, 2015, the Settlement Fund has required the
Department of Finance to certify the amounts remitted to the Fund
to pay for the 25 percent pension amount are properly appropriated
funds under the Casino Law, and the use of which in covering the
25 percent pension payments is in accordance with all applicable
CNMI appropriation laws.

Ms. Tang said Finance Secretary Larissa Larson also certified that
the funds from the Oct. 15, 2014, pension through the
Feb. 28, 2015, pension complied with CNMI appropriation laws.

In her Jan. 29, 2016 letter to Torres, Ms. Tang expressed her deep
concern that the government has not been making regular payments
toward the reduction of the minimum annual payments for the first
and second quarter of FY 2016.

Ms. Tang said the government is required to pay $10.5 million for
the second quarter, and to date, the government has only paid $1
million.

She said the government's payments have been unpredictable and
irregular.

Ms. Tang said in the month of January 2016, the government paid
more for the 25 percent pension payments ($1.26 million) than it
did toward the reduction of its minimum annual payment obligations
to the Settlement Fund.

Ms. Tang said the government gives the 25 percent payments higher
priority than its obligations under the Settlement Agreement.

Ms. Tang said if the government continues its pattern of not
making significant payments until the deadline, March 31, 2016,
the Settlement Fund could be required to liquidate up to $10
million of its investments from the corpus to cover the shortfall
through the end of the second quarter.

Tang said the cost to the retirees will include not only the loss
of investment income from the liquidated investments and the
liquidation fees incurred by the Settlement Fund, but a
significantly reduced investment corpus which will directly
translate into reduced investment income.

"This is a waste of the Settlement Fund's diminishing resources
and will hasten the depletion date of the Settlement Fund's
investments," she said.

Ms. Tang said there is no order or legal obligation on the part of
the government to pay the 25 percent, and the priority given to
the 25 percent payments is a matter of grave concern, especially
when the government is clearly unable to pay the minimum annual
payment on a regular basis.

Ms. Tang said in the event of a default, the Settlement Fund will
has no alternative but to execute on the $779 million consent
judgment.

"This will be disastrous for the retirees and the entire
Commonwealth," Ms. Tang told Mr. Torres in the letter.

The $30 million casino fees paid by Best Sunshine were the source
of 25 percent payments in FY 2014 and 2015.

That source of funding was exhausted in December 2014.

The $15 million license fee paid by Best Sunshine for Year 2 to
cover FY 2016 25 percent payments was exhausted for Saipan in June
2015, and Rota after the Aug. 15, 2015, pension pay period,
according to Ms. Tang.

Ms. Tang asked Mr. Torres that they must improve communication and
coordination between the government and the Settlement Fund on the
matter of payments of the minimum annual payment.

In her Feb. 10, 2016, letter to Mr. Torres, Ms. Tang said she
contacted his office twice regarding scheduling a meeting with
him, but that he has not received a response for a meeting, or for
the government to identify a source of income with which to pay
the 25 percent pension payments that complies with NMI
Appropriation laws.

Ms. Tang said the Settlement Fund received $632,052.71 that day,
Feb. 10, 2016, from the government to pay the 25 percent pension
payment due Feb. 12, 2016.

Ms. Tang said the Settlement Fund cannot continue to accommodate
the government in distributing the 25 percent pension payments
unless the government identifies a source income that can be used
for this purpose or obtains a court order.

In that Feb. 10 letter, Ms. Tang said the Settlement Fund will
hold all monies transferred by the government to the Settlement
Fund for the 25 percent pension payments until a funding source
complying with NMI law is identified, or the government obtains a
court order requiring the Settlement Fund to disburse these funds.

In a letter hand delivered to Finance Secretary Larissa Larson on
Feb. 12, Ms. Tang said she is returning the $632,052.71 which was
transferred to the Settlement Fund for the Feb. 12, 2016, 25
percent pension payment because it comes from an unauthorized
source.

At the hearing, Ms. Tang stated that since June 19, 2015, she had
communication with Mr. Inos about the exhaustion of casino funds
for the 25 percent pension payments.

Ms. Tang said Mr. Inos was very cooperative and that she was
hoping that such cooperation would continue with the Torres
administration.

Assistant attorney general Ms. Sablan said the government has
other source of funding for the 25 percent, and these are the
hotel rooms and beverage taxes.

Ms. Sablan also pointed out that the governor has reprogramming
authority for public purposes.

Ms. Sablan said the payment for 25 percent is clearly for public
purpose.

Ms. Tang disagreed.  She said the hotel rooms and beverage taxes
cannot be used for this purpose and that they addressed this very
issue in their previous letter.

In her letter to Mr. Torres on Jan. 29, 2016, Ms. Tang informed
the governor that they do not believe that the 25 percent pension
payments come within the definition of "public purposes" under the
statute, therefore Public Law 19-08 (CNMI Appropriation law) would
not allow Torres to reprogram Executive Branch funds to pay the 25
percent pension.

Attorney Margery Bronster, counsel for Johnson, agreed with Tang
by discussing the reasons why the 25 percent pension payments do
not fall under the definition of "public purposes."

Ms. Bronster said her concern is that she does not know if the
government has appropriately appropriated the additional payment
for 25 percent.

She said they have not heard that the Legislature actually
appropriated funds for the payment of 25 percent.

Ms. Bronster also emphasized that the payment for 25 percent is
not really the trustee's job.

Ms. Bronster said their concern is if the 75 percent payment of
the settlement agreement is met.

The lawyer said if the government or the legislature appropriate
additional funds that would be fabulous.

Ms. Bronster said without clear idea about the source of funds for
the 25 percent, the trustee should not go forward without
appropriation.

Mr. Hocog said the government will cooperate to meet the payments
under the settlement agreement.

Mr. Hocog said he extends his apology to Ms. Tang to her comments
that Torres is not responding to her request for a meeting.

Mr. Hocog said he will communicate with Torres to work with Tang
to reach an understanding.

"I am willing to sit down with Tang to work out the concerns," the
acting governor said.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood said she expects the Torres administration
to work closely and expeditiously with Tang to ensure the retirees
get their benefits.

Mr. Hocog assured that it will be a priority in every budget year
to satisfy the 75 percent payment,

The judge said she will take Mr. Hocog's words that the
communication with Tang will continue.

"You can take my words," Mr. Hocog replied.

Ms. Tang said they struggled with this issue of accommodation and
that it has to stop.

"It's like laundering money!" Ms. Tang said.  "There is no
different. We cannot continue as we are."

Ms. Sablan stressed that the government has so far met its
obligations to date as the government has managed to pay the 75
percent.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood said the government should make sure that
in paying the 25 percent it does not compromise the 75 percent.

Ms. Bronster said the failure to pay the 25 percent is not the
failure of Tang as she is simply accommodating the request.

Ms. Bronster said it's not Ms. Tang's responsibility to pay the 25
percent.

Mr. Hocog said they can make a "workable solution" in one week.

Mr. Hocog asked the court to consider proceeding with the payment
of 25 percent for the meantime, while the government is making a
critical decision.

But Ms. Tang said they have not received authorization from the
legislature for the funds.

The judge said she cannot rule on the issue without making proper
diligence or having received briefings on the matter.


NUNA BABY: Recalls High Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nuna Baby Essentials Inc., of Morgantown, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,600 High chairs in the U.S. (in
addition, 350 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The arm bar can bend or detach during use, posing a fall hazard to
children.

This recall includes ZAAZTM high chairs in eight models: HC-07-004
(pewter), HC-07-005 (carbon), HC-07-006 (plum), HC-07-009
(almond), HC-08-004 (pewter), HC-08-005 (carbon), HC-08-006 (plum)
and HC-08-009 (almond). ZAAZ and the model number are printed
under the high chair seat on a white sticker. These high chairs
look like a regular kitchen table chair and have removable trays,
arm bars footrests, seat pads and harnesses so that they can
convert into toddler chairs. "Nuna" is printed above the footrest
of the unit.

Nuna has received 50 reports of the arm bar detaching, including
six reports of children falling from the high chair. Four
incidents resulted in injuries, including bruising and a cut on
the forehead.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/SL3oKK

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Albee
Baby, Giggle, Magic Bean, Nordstrom and other specialty stores
nationwide and online at www.nuna.eu and www.wayfair.com and other
online retailers from February 2013 through November 2015 for
about between $250 and $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled high chairs
and contact the firm to receive a free new arm bar and
instructions on how to replace it.


NY STATE CATHOLIC HEALTH: Violates GOL, "Halpern" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Halpern, individually, and on behalf all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. New York State Catholic Health Plan,
Inc., d/b/a Fidelis Care, the Defendant, Case No. 163044/2015
(N.Y. Super Ct., December 28, 2016), seeks to recover injunction
and damages relating to the Defendant's violation of General
Obligations Law.

The New York State Catholic Health Plan, doing business as Fidelis
Care New York, provides health insurance through the Family Health
Plus, Child Health Plus, and Medicaid Managed Care programs
covering checkups, prenatal care, preventive care, well-child
visits, immunizations, laboratory tests, X-rays, hospitalization,
and emergency treatment. The company is based in Rego, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Neal Harpen, Esq.
          141 First Avenue No. 2
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (646) 288 4372
          Facsimile: (212) 598 4192
          Attorney Pro Se


ORAN CORP: "Bastista" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Romulo Bastista, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Oran Corp., (d/b/a Soho Thai), Whitman
Smith, and Paula Ariya, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00208-JPO
(S.D.N.Y., January 11, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime
wages, liquidated damages, interests, attorney's fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Batista regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week as dishwasher, food preparer, and delivery worker.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control Soho Thai Restaurant
located at New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          Michael Faillace & Associates, PC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200


PACIFIC GATEWAY: $800,000 Deal Has Initial OK; June 6 Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson granted Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case,
RACHEL HOCHSTETLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GATEWAY
CONCESSIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-04748-TEH, (N.D. Cal.)

Under the deal, PGC will establish a Fund in the amount of
$800,000 of Gift Cards.

In his Order dated February 2, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/kDW3pHfrom Leagle.com, Judge Henderson preliminarily
finds that the terms of the proposed Settlement are fair,
adequate, and reasonable, and therefore comply with Rule 23(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).  The Court orders
that the following Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for
settlement purposes only: "All consumers who, at any time during
the period October 24, 2012 to October 23, 2014, were provided an
electronically printed receipt at the point of a sale or
transaction at any store operated by PGC or its affiliates listed
on Exhibit A to the Agreement (PGC Included Stores), on which
receipt was printed the expiration date of the consumer's credit
card or debit card."

The Settlement Fund will be divided by the total number of
Settlement Class members who submit a valid and timely claim to
determine each claiming Settlement Class member's Pro-Rata Share.
In the event the Pro-Rata Share is equal to or exceeds $100, each
Settlement Class member who submits a valid and timely claim will
be mailed a PGC Gift Card in the amount of $100; in the event the
Pro-Rata Share is less than $100, each Settlement Class member who
submits a valid and timely claim will be mailed a PGC Gift Card in
the amount of the Pro-Rata Share. Each Settlement Class member may
submit only one claim, regardless of whether they made one or more
credit or debit card transactions during the period October 24,
2012 to October 23, 2014.

The Court appoints Plaintiffs Hochstetler and Torres as the Class
Representatives for the Settlement Class. The Court appoints
attorney Chant Yedalian of Chant & Company A Professional Law
Corporation as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court
preliminarily finds that the Settlement is the product of serious,
informed, non-collusive negotiations conducted at arm's-length by
the Parties and with the assistance of the Court-appointed
mediator, David M. Bluhm, Esq.

The Court also approves the proposed manner of the notice of
Settlement.  PGC will post the Short-Form Notice at each cash
register and entrance of each PGC Included Store.

Settlement Class members will have 180 days from the date Short-
Form Notice is first posted at all of the stores on the PGC
Included Stores list to submit a claim for compensation from the
Settlement Fund. Settlement Class members will have until 60
calendar days after the date Short-Form Notice is first posted by
PGC to exclude themselves from the Settlement.  Settlement Class
members may opt out by timely sending a written request to Class
Counsel postmarked no later than the Opt-Out Deadline. Class
Counsel shall promptly provide a copy of any opt-out request to
PGC.

Settlement Class members who timely opt out of the Settlement: (a)
will not be a part of the Settlement; (b) will have no right to
receive any benefits under the Settlement; (c) will not be bound
by the terms of the Settlement; and (d) will not have any right to
object to the terms of the Settlement or be heard at the fairness
hearing. Any Settlement Class member, on his or her own, or
through an attorney hired at his or her own expense, may object to
the terms of the Settlement. Any such objection must be filed with
the Court and also served on Class Counsel and counsel for PGC.

To be effective, any objection must be in writing, and must be
filed and served no later than 60 calendar days after the date
Short-Form Notice is first posted by PGC, or as the Court
otherwise directs. Any objections not raised properly and timely
will be waived. The Court will hold a fairness (final approval)
hearing on June 6, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed Settlement as well as
the award of attorney's fees and costs to Class Counsel and
service (or incentive) awards to the Class Representatives.

Chant Yedalian, Esq. -- chant@chant.mobi -- of Chant & Company
serves as counsel for Plaintiff Rachel Hochstetler

Mara Elizabeth Rosales, Esq. -- mara@rosaleslawpartners.com -- and
Robert Durston Sanford, Esq. -- rsanfordlaw@gmail.com -- of
Rosales Law Partners LLP serve as counse for Defendant Pacific
Gateway Concessions LLC


PANDA RESTAURANT: Violates Unruh Act, "Bennett" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bennett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., and
Panda Express, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. RG 15797850 (Cal.
Super. Ct., December 24, 2015), seeks to recover statutory damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief as
a result of Defendants' violations of Unruh Act, Civil Rights Act
and California Civil Code.

Panda Restaurant Group operates a chain of restaurants. The
Company offers Chinese food, gourmet mandarin and Szechuan
cuisine, and Japanese grill favorites, as well as appetizers,
soups and salads, entrees, noodles and rice products, and sides.
The Company is based in Rosemead, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534 2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247 0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Brazilian Group's Case Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
that an appeal in the class action by The Smoker Health Defense
Association is still pending in Brazil.

In the class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense
Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July
25, 1995, the Company's subsidiary and another member of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization,
is seeking damages for all addicted smokers and former smokers,
and injunctive relief.

In 2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately
$240) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the
rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court did
not award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second
phase of the case. The size of the class was not estimated.

Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the claim. Plaintiff
appealed the decision. In February 2015, the appellate court
unanimously dismissed plaintiff's appeal. In September 2015,
plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice.

In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not have
standing to bring the lawsuit. This appeal is still pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: Brazil Public Prosecutor's Appeal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
that an appeal by the Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo in a class
action lawsuit remains pending.

In the class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of Sao
Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., Civil
Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, the
Company's subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the Public
Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i) damages on
behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and their
relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people exposed to
environmental tobacco smoke nationwide, and their relatives; and
(iii) reimbursement of the health care costs allegedly incurred
for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases by all Brazilian
States and Municipalities, and the Federal District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only. In
December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the ADESF case and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo where
the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated that these
cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment.

In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh
Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that
they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at
different stages of proceedings. This case was returned to the
Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and our subsidiary filed its
closing arguments in December 2010.

In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits.
In January 2014, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected
plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the trial court decision. In July
2014, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice.


PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing in "Letourneau" Appeal Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
that a hearing for the merits appeal in the class action lawsuit
by Cecilia Letourneau in Canada is scheduled in November 2016.

In the class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
(Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are
defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought
compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who
is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005.

Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014. The
trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court
found our subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers liable
and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $93.7
million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million
(approximately $33 million) to our subsidiary.

The trial court found that defendants violated the Civil Code of
Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of
the dangers of smoking. The trial court also found that defendants
conspired to prevent consumers from learning the dangers of
smoking. The trial court further held that these civil faults were
a cause of the class members' addiction. The trial court rejected
other grounds of fault advanced by the class, holding that: (i)
the evidence was insufficient to show that defendants marketed to
youth, (ii) defendants' advertising did not convey false
information about the characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii)
defendants did not commit a fault by using the descriptors light
or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar delivery. The trial court
estimated the size of the addiction class at 918,000 members but
declined to award compensatory damages to the addiction class
because the evidence did not establish the claims with sufficient
accuracy. The trial court ordered defendants to pay the full
punitive damage award into a trust within 60 days and found that a
claims process to allocate the awarded damages to individual class
members would be too expensive and difficult to administer. The
trial court ordered a briefing on the proposed process for the
distribution of sums remaining from the punitive damage award
after payment of attorneys' fees and legal costs.

In June 2015, the Company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec.  The Company's
subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order
for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal.

In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and
overturned the trial court's ruling that our subsidiary make the
payment into a trust within 60 days. In August 2015, plaintiffs
filed a motion with the Court of Appeal seeking security in both
the Letourneau case and the Blais case.

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and
ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226
million (approximately $162 million), in the form of cash into a
court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million
(approximately $27 million) beginning in December 2015 through
March 2017.  The Court of Appeal has scheduled a hearing for the
merits appeal in November 2016.

The Company said, "Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the
findings of liability and damages were incorrect and should
ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds, including the
following: (i) holding that defendants violated Quebec law by
failing to warn class members of the risks of smoking even after
the court found that class members knew, or should have known, of
the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused injury to each class
member in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii)
creating a factual presumption, without any evidence from class
members or otherwise, that defendants' alleged misconduct caused
all smoking by all class members, (iv) holding that the addiction
class members' claims for punitive damages were not time-barred
even though the case was filed more than three years after a
prominent addiction warning appeared on all packages, and (v)
awarding punitive damages to punish defendants without proper
consideration as to whether punitive damages were necessary to
deter future misconduct."


PHILIP MORRIS: Hearing for Merits Appeal in "Blais" Set for Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
that a hearing for the merits appeal in the class action lawsuit
by Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais
is scheduled in November 2016.

In the class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le
Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec
Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the Company's
subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants. The
plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker,
sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the
class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related diseases.

The class was certified in 2005. Trial began in March 2012 and
concluded in December 2014. The trial court issued its judgment on
May 27, 2015.

The trial court found the Company's subsidiary and two other
Canadian manufacturers liable and found that the class members'
compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion,
including pre-judgment interest (approximately $11.1 billion). The
trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several
liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately
CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately
$2.2 billion)). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000
(approximately $64,000) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000
(approximately $21,500) to the Company's subsidiary and found that
defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter
of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection
Act by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking.

The trial court also found that defendants conspired to prevent
consumers from learning the dangers of smoking. The trial court
further held that these civil faults were a cause of the class
members' diseases. The trial court rejected other grounds of fault
advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the evidence was
insufficient to show that defendants marketed to youth, (ii)
defendants' advertising did not convey false information about the
characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit
a fault by using the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with
a lower tar delivery. The trial court estimated the disease class
at 99,957 members. The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1
billion (approximately $715 million) of the compensatory damage
award into a trust within 60 days, CAD 200 million (approximately
$143 million) of which is the Company's subsidiary's portion and
ordered briefing on a proposed claims process for the distribution
of damages to individual class members and for payment of
attorneys' fees and legal costs.

In June 2015, the Company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec.  The Company's
subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order
for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal.

In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and
overturned the trial court's ruling that the Company's subsidiary
make an initial payment within 60 days. In August 2015, plaintiffs
filed a motion with the Court of Appeal seeking an order that
defendants place irrevocable letters of credit totaling CAD 5
billion (approximately $3.6 billion) into trust, to secure the
judgments in both the Letourneau and Blais cases. Plaintiffs
subsequently withdrew their motion for security against JTI-
MacDonald Corp. and proceeded only against the Company's
subsidiary and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and
ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226
million (approximately $162 million) to cover both the Letourneau
and Blais cases. Such security may take the form of cash into a
court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million
(approximately $27 million) beginning in December 2015 through
March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada
Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately
$542 million) in seven equal consecutive quarterly installments of
approximately CAD 108 million (approximately $77 million)
beginning in December 2015 through June 2017.

In December 2015, the Company's subsidiary made its first
quarterly installment of security for approximately CAD 37.6
million (approximately $27 million) into a court trust. This
payment is included in other assets on the consolidated balance
sheets and in cash used in operating activities in the
consolidated statements of cash flows. The Court of Appeal ordered
that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of
Appeal affirming the trial court's judgment or upon further order
of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has scheduled a
hearing for the merits appeal in November 2016.

The Company said, "Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the
findings of liability and damages were incorrect and should
ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds, including the
following: (i) holding that defendants violated Quebec law by
failing to warn class members of the risks of smoking even after
the court found that class members knew, or should have known, of
the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused injury to each class
member in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii)
creating a factual presumption, without any evidence from class
members or otherwise, that defendants' alleged misconduct caused
all smoking by all class members, (iv) relying on epidemiological
evidence that did not meet recognized scientific standards, and
(v) awarding punitive damages to punish defendants without proper
consideration as to whether punitive damages were necessary to
deter future misconduct."


PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking & Health Class Suits Pending at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
that as of December 31, 2015, there were 11 Smoking and Health
class actions.

These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by
individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class or purported class
of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in
these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including
negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud,
misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of
express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade
practice laws and consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs in
these cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory
and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses
raised in these cases include licit activity, failure to state a
claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the
risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations.

As of December 31, 2015, there were a number of smoking and health
cases pending against PM, its subsidiaries or indemnitees, as
follows:

     -- 68 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina
(32), Brazil (21), Canada (2), Chile (8), Costa Rica (2), Italy
(1), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared with 63 such
cases on December 31, 2014, and 62 cases on December 31, 2013; and

     -- 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual
plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such
cases on December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013.


PHILIP MORRIS: Motions Pending in "Adams" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
that preliminary motions are pending in the "Adams" class action
in Canada.

In the class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting
from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have
allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart
disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Preliminary
motions are pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Case in Canada Remains Inactive
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
that in the class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the Company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma,
and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of
profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs
allegedly caused by tobacco products.

In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he
did not anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues
the class action filed in Saskatchewan.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Case in Canada Remains Inactive
-------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
that in the class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial
court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the Company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products
and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.
No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Case in Canada Remains Inactive
-------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
that in the class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the Company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products
and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from
the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, restitution
of profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs
allegedly caused by tobacco products.

"To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been
properly served with the complaint. No activity in this case is
anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action
filed in Saskatchewan," the Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
that the class action, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada
Limited, et al., remains pending in Canada.

The case filed in the Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, on
June 25, 2010, the Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees
(PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are
defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own
addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the
use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who
were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Bourassa" Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
that the class action, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada
Limited, et al., remains pending in Canada.

In the case, filed in the Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the Company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker,
alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and
suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive
on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory
diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents
and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the
defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.
In December 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of
claim.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Jacklin" Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016,
that the class action, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
filed June 20, 2012, remains pending in Canada.

The Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have
smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered,
or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as
restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he
does not intend to take any action in this case in the near
future.


PIER 1: Recalls Swivel Dining Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pier 1 Imports U.S. Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas, announced a
voluntary recall of about 800 Capella Island Swivel Dining Chairs
(in addition, 4 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The chairs can break at the base, posing fall hazard to the user.

This recall involves Pier 1 Imports Capella Island Swivel Dining
chairs. The plastic wicker chairs have a natural wood color. The
chair measures about 26 inches wide by 26 inches deep and 39
inches high.

Pier 1 Imports has received three reports of the chairs breaking,
including two reports of customers falling. No injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/MzI0nS

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Pier 1 Imports stores nationwide and online at Pier1.com from
January 2015 through October 2015 for between $240 and $500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
return them to any Pier 1 Imports store for a full refund or a
merchandise credit.


PRATT AND WHITNEY: Court Trims Claims in "Rosenstein" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller granted in part and denied in
part Defendants' motion to strike in the captioned case HOWARD
ROSENSTEIN, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRATT AND WHITNEY; PRATT AND
WHITNEY A UNITED TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION PRATT & WHITNEY; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION and
DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 15cv2183
JM(JLB), (S.D. Cal.)

Howard Rosenstein, individually and on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, initiated this action against
Defendants in San Diego Superior Court, alleging these six causes
of action:

     (1) failure to provide complete access to employee payroll
         and personnel records pursuant to Cal. Labor Code
         Sections 226, 432, and 1198.5;

     (2) failure to pay wages/special retention incentive;

     (3) failure to timely pay wages due upon separation of
         employment;

     (4) violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 226;

     (5) remedies under Private Attorney General Act (PAGA)
         pursuant to Cal. Labor Code Sections 2698, 2699, et seq.;
         and

     (6) unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. &
         Prof. Code Sections 17000, et seq. and Sections 17200, et
         seq.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are generally involved in the
design, manufacture, and service of aircraft engines and auxiliary
power units, and that he worked as a Copy Center Coordinator for
them from about May 21, 1997 to March 20, 2015. Plaintiff alleges
that during the applicable class period Defendants failed to pay
him and other employees incentive pay and issued inaccurate pay
stubs. Plaintiff defines the class as "all current and former
employees who worked in the state of California from June 15, 2011
to the present . . . who received inaccurate paystubs from the
Defendants." Plaintiff seeks back wages, restitution, penalties,
and related remedies.

Defendants removed this case to federal court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), alleging
diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy over
$5,000,000.  Defendants filed a motion to strike.

In his Order dated January 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/HOuZJpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Miller granted in part
and denied in part Defendants' motion to strike:

     -- Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's allegations
        referring to (1) PAGA penalties under Cal. Labor Code
        Section 2699, and (2) corporate entities not named as
        Defendants is granted.

     -- Defendants' motion to strike (1) references to attorney's
        fees under Cal. Labor Code Sections 226(e) and 226(f), (2)
        Plaintiff's PAGA allegations, and (3) Plaintiff's demand
        for injunctive relief is denied.

Defendants shall have 14 days from the date of this order to
answer or otherwise respond.

Thomas D Rutledge, Esq. -- thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com of Law
Office of Thomas D Rutledge serves as counsel for Plaintiff Howard
Rosenstein, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated

Monica Rodriguez, Esq. -- morodriguez@seyfarth.com -- Timothy M.
Rusche, Esq. -- trusche@seyfarth.com -- and Jamie Chanin Pollaci,
Esq. -- jpollaci@seyfarth.com -- of Seyfarth Shaw LLP serve as
counsel for Defendant Pratt and Whitney


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Avila" Seeks Injunctive Relief Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Avila, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical
Laboratories, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Quest Diagnostics
Nichols Institute, a California Corporation; and Does 1 through
10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00209 (C.D. Cal., January 11,
2015), seeks full restitution of monies, as necessary and
according to proof, to restore any and all monies withheld, and
seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and restitution,
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act, Labor Code, and Unfair
Competition (Bus & Prof Code).

Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories offers diagnostic testing
services for physicians, hospitals, managed-care organizations,
and employers. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. was
formerly known as SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
The company was incorporated in 1975 and is based in Collegeville,
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN, LLP
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 322 2220
          Facsimile: (310) 322 2228
          E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
                  fschmidt@bollaw.com


RENTRAK CORP: Files Supplemental Disclosures on Merger
------------------------------------------------------
Rentrak Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2016, that
following the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of September 29, 2015
(the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Rentrak, comScore, Inc.,
and Rum Acquisition Corporation ("Merger Sub"), four purported
class action lawsuits relating to the Merger Agreement were filed
on behalf of Rentrak shareholders in the Multnomah County Circuit
Court in Oregon against Rentrak, members of Rentrak's board of
directors, comScore and Merger Sub, and in the lawsuit of Nathan
v. Rentrak Corporation, et al., No. 15CV27429, filed on October 9,
2015, and a First Amended Class Action Complaint filed on November
19, 2015 also against Rentrak's Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Operating Officer, David Chemerow, (collectively, the
"Defendants"), which lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into
a single action captioned In re Rentrak Corporation Shareholders
Litigation, Consolidated Lead Case No. 15cv27429 (the "Oregon
Action").

The Defendants believe that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the Joint Proxy Statement under applicable laws;
however, to avoid the risk that the Oregon court may issue an
injunction in connection with the Oregon Action, which would delay
or otherwise adversely affect the completion of the proposed
merger, comScore and Rentrak decided to make specific supplemental
disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement related to the proposed
merger, which supplemental disclosures are set forth below (the
"Supplemental Disclosures"). The Supplemental Disclosures should
be read in conjunction with the Joint Proxy Statement, which
should be read in its entirety.  A copy of the Supplemental
Disclosures is available at http://is.gd/EthO43


RINO INTERNATIONAL: Claims Against Frazer Frost Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case SUSAN HUFNAGLE, et al. Plaintiffs, v. RINO
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, DEJUN ZOU, JIANPING QIU, YI JENNY LIU,
BEN WANG, KENNITH C. JOHNSON, XIE QUAN, WEIGUO ZHANG, LI YU, AND
FRAZER FROST, LLP f/k/a MOORE STEPHENS WURTH FRAZER AND TORBET,
LLP, Defendants, Case No. CV 10-8695-DDP (VBKx), (C.D. Cal.),
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson approved on a final basis the
Stipulation of Settlement dated October 9, 2015 between Lead
Plaintiff Stream SICAV and named plaintiffs Todd Marx, John Dorman
and Lee Karlson, on behalf of themselves and each of the Class
Members, and Defendant Frazer Frost LLP.

The claims against Frazer Frost are dismissed without costs and
with prejudice in full and final discharge of any and all claims
which were or could have been asserted in the Action as against
Defendant.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10b and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act arising out of the Company's issuance of
materially false and misleading statements of revenue and
earnings.  The court has approved a partial settlement of this
action for $7 million in cash.

Prior to the Stipulation, the case was pending against RINO's
auditor.

The Settlement previously reached with RINO will create a Fund to
pay claims of investors who purchased the common stock or call
options of RINO, or sold put options of RINO, between March 31,
2009, and November 17, 2010, inclusive, and who have been damaged
thereby. The Net Settlement Fund (the Settlement Fund less any
attorneys' fees, award to Lead Plaintiff, expert and consultant
fees, taxes, and other costs and expenses approved by the Court)
will be distributed in accordance with a plan of allocation.

The Rosen Law Firm, on its Web site, is serving as sole Lead
Counsel in this consolidated class action.

Strategic Claims Services serve as claims administrator.

In his Final Judgment and Order dated February 1, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/b9Y88qfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pregerson held that
the Stipulation of Settlement between SICAV et al., and Frazer
Frost is fair, reasonable, and adequate for the settlement of all
claims asserted by the Class Members against the firm.

Plaintiff Susan Hufnagle is represented by John E Torbett, Jr,
Esq. --  jet@torbettlaw.com -- Brian Oliver O'Mara, Esq. --
bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP --
Jeff S Westerman, Esq. -- jwesterman@jswlegal.com -- of Westerman
Law Corp; Laurence M Rosen, Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- and
Phillip Kim, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- of The Rosen Law Firm
PA; Lee M Gordon, Esq. -- lee@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP; Mark I Labaton, Esq. -- mlabaton@iflcounsel.com
-- of Isaccs Friedberg & Labaton; and Michael D Braun, Esq. --
mdb@braunlawgroup.com -- of Braun Law Group PC

Emily V Griffen, Esq. -- egriffen@shearman.com -- Jeffrey S
Facter, Esq. -- jfacter@shearman.com -- and Patrick D Robbins,
Esq. -- probbins@shearman.com -- of Shearman & Sterling LLP serve
as counsel for Defendant Rino International Corporation

Frazer Frost, LLP, is represented by Daniel S Agle, Klinedinst.

Counsel for defendant Kennith C. Johnson:

     Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Esq.
     COOLEY LLP
     Five Palo Alto Square
     3000 El Camino Real
     Palo Alto, CA 94306

Counsel for defendant Weiguo Zhang:

     Neal A. Potischman, Esq.
     DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
     1600 El Camino Real
     Menlo Park, CA 94025


ROYAL APPLIANCE: Recalls Dirt Devil(R) Vacuums
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Royal Appliance Mfg. Co., of Glenwillow, Ohio, announced a
voluntary recall of about 149,000 Dirt Devil(R) Total Pet Cyclonic
Upright vacuums in the United States (in addition, about 9,700 in
Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The vacuum's electric cord plug prong can detach and remain in the
electrical outlet when the vacuum is unplugged. The detached prong
can pose an electrical shock hazard if it remains connected with
the electrical outlet.

The recall includes three models of the Dirt Devil Total Pet
Cyclonic Upright vacuums, model UD70210, UD70210CA and UD70210RM.
The model number and manufacture date code are printed on a silver
label on the back side of the vacuum. The vacuums are identical
with black, gray and clear housing with red and purple trim.
"Total Pet" is printed underneath the Dirt Devil logo in the
center of the vacuum. Only vacuums with the first three digits of
the four digit manufacture date code that begin with B14 through
I15 are included in the recall. All recalled vacuums were
manufactured between February 2014 and September 2015.

The firm has received 14 reports of a detached prong that remained
in an electrical outlet. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Z1HuCj

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at ABC
Warehouse, Boardman Furniture, Fred's, Walmart stores nationwide,
Dirt Devil via telephone and online at www.dirtdevil.com,
www.ebay.com and www.walmart.com from February 2014 through
November 2015 for between $45 and $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vacuums and
contact Dirt Devil for instructions on receiving a free
replacement vacuum.


RUAN TRANSPORTATON: "Shaw" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Shaw, for himself and all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Ruan Transportaton Management Systems, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00075-SCJ (N.D. Ga., January 11,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated
damages, actual damages, compensatory damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs and interest pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ruan Transportation provides fleet management and logistics
services in the United States. It provides dedicated contract
carriage services; and supply chain solution services, including
logistics management, load management, mode selection, carrier
management, route optimization, freight pay and audit, certified
brokerage, cross docking/postponement, warehousing/warehouse
management, subassembly, kitting, and international crating. The
company is based Des Moines, Iowa.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher D. Vaughn, Esq.
          Frank DeMelfi, Esq.
          A. Brian Henson, Esq.
          THE VAUGHN LAW FIRM, LLC
          246 Sycamore Street Suite 150
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 378 1290
          Facsimile: (404) 378 1295


SALT & PEPPER DINER: Fails to Pay Wages, "Escutia" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Escutia, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Salt & Pepper Diner Clark
Street, Inc. and John Halle, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00352 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division, January 11, 2016),
seeks seek to recover unpaid wages, statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Salt & Pepper Diner is an Illinois corporation and John Hale is
its President. The Diner operates as a restaurant at 3537 North
Clark Street in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Grant Brown
          JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 789 9700


SCHOLARSHIP STORAGE: Misclassification Case Wins Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen granted the motion for class
certification in the captioned case ROBERT CURTIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SCHOLARSHIP STORAGE d/b/a Business As Usual, et
al., Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-303-NT, (D. Me.)

The Plaintiffs Robert Curtis and Benjamin Krauter brought this
hybrid collective and class action on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of other similarly situated individuals who were working
for or had worked for Business As Usual (BAU). The Plaintiffs
allege that BAU had misclassified them and other similarly
situated delivery and shuttle drivers as independent contractors
rather than employees. In particular, the Plaintiffs alleged that
as a result of the misclassification, they had borne expenses
which should have been borne by BAU, that they had not been paid
for all hours worked, and that on occasion they were due overtime
for weeks in which they worked in excess of 40 hours. The
Plaintiffs claimed that the misclassification and alleged failure
to pay them properly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 207 et seq., and Maine's wage and overtime laws,
including 26 M.R.S.A. Sections 626, 629, 664, and 667.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of the
FLSA claims and I conditionally certified the FLSA collective.
Plaintiff moves for certification of a settlement class.

In her Order dated January 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/B8nRx7from Leagle.com, Judge Torresen granted the
Plaintiff's motion to certify the class.

There are 60 members in the proposed class of employees; they live
throughout Maine and in several different states.  Judge Torresen
said the Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity requirement. The
Plaintiffs allege that because they were all unlawfully classified
as independent contractors, they were all subjected to the same
policies and practices with respect to their pay. The Plaintiffs
have satisfied the commonality requirement, the judge added.

Plaintiffs Curtis and Krauter are or were drivers for BAU who
contend that they were misclassified as independent contractors
and as a result paid less than they should have been. The question
of whether the drivers were employees or independent contractors
are questions common to the class representatives and the
prospective class. The interests of the named plaintiffs align
with the members of the class they seek to represent. The
Plaintiffs Curtis and Krauter have established typicality with
respect to the class, the Court said.

The Court added that, with respect to vigorous prosecution of the
case, counsel has a great deal of experience in the area of labor
and employment law actions and are qualified to handle the matter.
Curtis and Krauter have taken an active and zealous role in the
prosecution of this action; in particular, Curtis has met with
counsel on numerous occasions and attended two days of mediation.
Neither of the class representatives settled his claims without
settling the claims of all of the members of the class. Extensive
discovery was exchanged, including interrogatories and document
production requests by both parties in addition to the
disclosures. Therefore, the action is in a form capable of
judicial action, thereby satisfying the requirements of Rule
23(a)(4). There appears to have been a willingness of the class
representatives to take an active role in the litigation and to
protect the interests of the absentees. The adequacy requirement
is therefore met for the class. Many class members will only be
entitled to small sums, making it less likely that they would
pursue claims on an individual basis. The Plaintiffs have
satisfied the predominance and superiority requirements in Rule
23(b)(3).

Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq. and Phillip E. Johnson, Esq. of Johnson
Webbert & Young LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Robert Curtis

Beth A. Deragon, Esq. -- beth.deragon@mclane.com -- Charla B.
Stevens, Esq. -- charla.stevens@mclane.com -- and Nicholas F.
Casolaro, Esq. -- nicholas.casolaro@mclane.com -- of McLane Graf
Raulerson & Middleton PA -- Peter C. Felmly, Esq. --
pfelmly@dwmlaw.com -- and Michael L. Buescher, Esq. --
mbuescher@dwmlaw.com -- of Dummond Woodsum serve as counsel for
Defendant Scholarship Storage Inc.


SELECTION MANAGEMENT: At Odds with Insurer Over Class Suit Cost
---------------------------------------------------------------
Selection Management Systems, Inc., reached a settlement in a
putative class action that was filed in the Superior Court of
California.  Its insurer, Torus Specialty Insurance Company, paid
out the settlement under the first policy. Subsequently, two
additional putative class action lawsuits were filed against
Selection. These two underlying actions are pending in the
Northern District of California and the Southern District of Ohio.

The parties disputed whether insurance coverage for the new suits
should fall under the first policy -- with a nearly exhausted
coverage limitation -- or the previously unused second policy. The
parties failed to reach an agreement regarding the same.

Torus filed suit in the Southern District of Ohio against
Selection seeking a declaratory judgment that the new suits are
only covered by the first policy.  Selection filed its own case
about eight hours later, asserting Torus breached their agreement
by failing to provide coverage for the new suits under the second
policy.

Torus moves for the dismissal of Selection's complaint.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff purchased two insurance
policies from Defendant. The first policy was effective from June
13, 2013 to June 13, 2014, the second from June 13, 2014 to June
13, 2015. Both purportedly have $1 million maximum liability
limits.

District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Defendant's motion
to dismiss in the case, SELECTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a
SELECTION.COM, Plaintiff, v. TORUS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-05445-YGR, (N.D. Cal.).  In her Order
dated January 26, 2016 available at http://is.gd/xvwT3Lfrom
Leagle.com, Judge Rogers granted Defendant's motion to dismiss
pursuant to the first-to-file rule.

Selection is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of
business in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Torus is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Jersey City, New Jersey.

Robert Douglas Whitney, Esq. -- robert.whitney@outlook.com and
Raymond Joseph Tittmann, Esq. -- raymond.tittmann@emhllp.com of
Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP serve as counsel for Defendant
Torus Specialty Insurance Company
Andrew M. Hutchison, Esq. -- ahutchison@cozen.com and Gary Lee
Gassman, Esq. -- ggassman@cozen.com of Cozen O'Connor serve as
counsel for Defendant Torus Specialty Insurance Company


SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Named in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shiloh Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has appointed
the lead plaintiff and the counsel for the class in a securities
class action lawsuit.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on September 21, 2015
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and certain of its officers (Mr.
Ramzi Hermiz and Mr. Thomas Dugan).  The lawsuit claims in part
that the Company issued inaccurate information to investors about,
among other things, the Company's earnings and income and its
internal controls over financial reporting for the first and
second fiscal quarters of 2015 in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint seeks an award of damages in
an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between March 9,
2015 and September 14, 2015, inclusive.  On December 8, 2015, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
appointed the lead plaintiff and the counsel for the class.


SOCAL EDISON: Cal. App. Upholds Order Sustaining Demurrer
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Audrey B. Collins affirmed a trial court order sustaining
the demurrer without leave to amend in the appellate case
PHILLIPPE LEFEBVRE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON, Defendant and Respondent, No. B258175 (Cal.
App.)

In his second amended complaint, Lefebvre alleged that Edison
fraudulently enrolled ineligible customers in the California
Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program, which provides rate
assistance to low-income electricity and gas customers. The CARE
program is subsidized by all other ratepayers, and Lefebvre
alleged that Edison's practice of enrolling ineligible
participants caused the CARE program surcharge he and other
ratepayers were assessed to be higher than it should have been.

The original complaint, filed on November 3, 2011, alleged
substantially the same facts recited above and asserted causes of
action for violations of the California False Claims Act (Gov.
Code, Section 12651, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2) & (a)(8)); violations
of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section
17200 et seq.); money had and received; and accounting.

The Attorney General declined to intervene in the action. The
relator subsequently dismissed the qui tam allegations and
requested his removal from the suit. The trial court granted both
requests.

The Trial Court sustained Edison's demurrer to the second amended
complaint without leave to amend. The court did not address
Edison's argument that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the
second amended complaint under Public Utilities Code section 1759,
subdivision (a). Instead, it concluded that the action was barred
by section 532, which prohibits a public utility from "refunding
or remitting, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any
device, any portion of the rates, tolls, rentals, and charges"
specified in a filed tariff.

In his Opinion dated January 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/16SAJ4from Leagle.com, Judge Collins said the Trial
Court properly exercised its discretion in sustaining the demurrer
without leave to amend. The Court of Appeals concluded that
section 1759, subdivision(a) forecloses Lefebvre's claims because
a judgment in his favor would have the effect of undermining a
general supervisory or regulatory policy of the California Public
Utilities Commission (the commission or PUC).

The Court of Appeals further concludes that the Trial Court
properly exercised its discretion in sustaining the demurrer
without leave to amend. Irrespective of the merits of Lefebvre's
other challenges -- and notwithstanding the non-jurisdictional
basis of the Trial Court's decision -- the Second Amended
Complaint was demurrable because of the absence of jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action." Moreover, the Court did
not abuse its discretion in declining leave to amend. Accordingly,
the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Edison is awarded its
costs on appeal.

Thomas A. Kearney, Esq. -- tkearney@kearneyalvarezllp.com -- and
Prescott Littlefield, Esq. -- pwl@kearneylittlefield.com -- of
Kearney Littlefield; Jerome L. Ringler, Esq. --
jlr@ringlerschmidt.com -- and Catherine B. Schmidt, Esq. --
cbs@ringlerschmidt.com -- of Ringler-Schmidt; Shea S. Murphy, Esq.
-- smurphy@ecbappeal.com -- of Law Office of Shea S. Murphy;
Stuart B. Esner, Esq. -- sesner@ecbappeal.com -- of Esner, Chang &
Boyer serve as counsel for Plaintiff and Appellant

Laurie Edelstein, Esq. -- ledelstein@steptoe.com -- and Seth R.
Sias, Esq. -- ssias@steptoe.com -- of Steptoe & Johnson serve as
counsel for Defendant and Respondent


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: "Acevedo" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA & MMWA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Acevedo on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
Similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Southwest Airlines Co., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00024 (D. New Mex., January 12, 2016),
seeks to recover overtime pay at the rate of time and one-half
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, plus liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
court costs, pursuant to Mexico Minimum Wage Act and Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Southwest Airlines is a major U.S. airline and the world's largest
low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The airline has
nearly 46,000 employees as of December 2014 and operates more than
3,800 flights per day.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel M. Faber, Esq.
          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          John Neuman
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4620C Jefferson Lane NE
          Albuquerque, NM 87109
          Telephone: (505) 830 0405
          E-mail: dan@danielfaber.com
                  DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


SRIPRAPHAI THAI: Violates NY Labor Law, "Romero" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sripraphai Tipmanee d/b/a Sripraphai
Thai Restaurant, the Defendant, Case No. 608307/2015 (N. Y. Sup.
Ct., December 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at
statutory compounded rate of 9% per annum, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to New York Labor Law.

Sripraphai Thai Restaurant offers bold, authentic Thai flavors.
The Restaurant has two locations at Woodside and Williston Park,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil M. Frank, Esq.
          FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          500 Bi-County Blvd., Suite 465
          Farmingdale, N.Y. 11735
          Telephone: (631) 756 0400
          Facsimile: (631) 756 0547
          E-mail: nfrank@laborlaws.com


SST ENERGY: "Beall" FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Marcia S. Krieger granted Plaintiff's motion
for conditional Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action
certification in the captioned case SHANNON R. BEALL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SST
ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-cv-01741-MSK-
NYW, (D. Colo.)

Plaintiff, Shannon Beall, filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself
and other alleged similarly-situated employees of Defendant, SST
Energy Corporation (SST), asserting overtime pay violations under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Mr. Beall was employed by SST
from March 2011 through March of 2015. Although Mr. Beall held
different positions during his employment, at all times he states
that he was categorized as a nonexempt, hourly employee. Mr. Beall
asserts that he was paid an hourly wage plus nondiscretionary
bonuses, and that he regularly worked for SST in excess of forty
hours a week. In calculating overtime pay owed to Mr. Beall, he
alleges that SST did not include his nondiscretionary bonus pay.
Mr. Beall's Complaint (#1) and Affidavit (#49-5), state that this
pay schedule was a universal policy applicable to calculating
overtime pay for all hourly, nonexempt employees.

Plaintiff moves for conditional certification and notice to
putative class members.

In her Order dated January 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/c3fQxzfrom Leagle.com, Judge Krieger granted
Plaintiff's motion for conditional FLSA collective action
certification and conditionally certifies this as a FLSA
collective action. Mr. Beall may send the Proposed Notice and
Consent Form (after making the revisions identified in the Court's
above discussion) to putative Plaintiffs, and the Court adopts the
schedule set forth in Mr. Beall's Amended Motion. Upon granting
conditional certification of an FLSA collective action, a
Plaintiff may send a Hoffman-La Roche notice to putative
Plaintiffs, informing them of the litigation and giving
instructions in order to join in the action.

SST has objected to Mr. Beall's Proposed Hoffman-La Roche Notice.

Mr. Beall states that he was an hourly, nonexempt employee of SST,
which is supported by employee status change forms that confirm
such employment in 2014, 2012, and non-exempt in 2011. As evidence
that his overtime pay was not properly calculated, he introduced a
memorandum he received from SST explaining that there "may have
been an error in the calculation of overtime compensation
pertaining to the company paid bottom hole bonuses," and a check
SST sent him in the amount of the additional overtime SST believed
Mr. Beall was owed. In support of his statements that the failure
to properly pay overtime affected other putative Plaintiffs, Mr.
Beall introduced the affidavit of another SST hourly employee,
Robert McComas, who corroborated that SST routinely failed to
factor in nondiscretionary bonuses when calculating overtime pay.
Mr. McComas received the same memorandum Mr. Beall received
regarding overtime pay errors, which was directed to "Affected
employees of SST Energy Corporation."

The Court finds Mr. Beall's allegations and evidence sufficient to
establish at this early stage that there may be other similarly-
situated putative collective action Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the
Court conditionally certifies this as a collective action.

Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. and Michael
Andrew Josephson, Esq. of Fibich, Leebron, Copeland, Briggs &
Josephson and Richard Jennings Burch, Esq. of Bruckner Burch PLLC
serve as counsel for Plaintiff Shannon R. Beall, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated

Brett Norman Huff, Esq. -- bhuff@wsteele.com -- of Huff & Leslie,
LLP and MaryBeth Schroeder, Esq. -- marybeth@schroedermb-law.com
-- of Schroeder & Griffith, LLC serve as counsel for Defendant SST
Energy Corporation


STILLWATER INSURANCE: "Tortajada" Sues for Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Tortajada, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Stillwater
Insurance Company and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC604854 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, December 21, 2015),
seeks general, compensatory damages, plus prejudgment interest and
other damages, special and consequential damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, restitutionary disgorgement of all profits
obtained as a result of breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for unfair business
practices.

Tortajada owns a home at 23455 Glenridge Drive, Newhall,
California 91321 and was the named insured under a homeowners
insurance policy issued by the Defendant who provided coverage for
his residence. Plaintiff's home suffered smoke, soot and ash and
related particulate matter damage as a result of the Colby fire in
June 2015.

Stillwater Insurance Company imposed a $2,500.00 sublimit for
claims for any smoke, soot, ash and debris resulting from a
wildfire or brushfire.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
     Joshua H. Haffher, Esq.
     Levi M. Plesset, Esq.
     KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Tel: (213) 217-5000
     Fax: (213)217-5010
     Email: bsk@kbklawvers.com
            ghh@kbklawyers.com
            lp@kbklawyers.com


SUPERVALU INC: Class Suit Stayed Pending Case v. IOS Officers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 5, 2015, that a class action
complaint was filed in September 2008 against the Company, as well
as International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.;
Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing,
Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in
the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are
a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a
retailer marketing services company that allege on behalf of a
purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i)
conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services
under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise
to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit; however,
all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of
the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.


SUPERVALU INC: Class Certification Appeal Pending in 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 5, 2015, that plaintiffs in a
class action related to a transaction with C&S Wholesale Grocers,
Inc. ("C&S") have taken an appeal to the Eighth Circuit the denial
of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff and to
seek class certification for a group of New England retailers.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate
markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain
assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's
bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to
C&S that were located in New England.

Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar
complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases were consolidated and
are proceeding in the United States District Court in Minnesota.
The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and
continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation
agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities
that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are
seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on
January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-
arbitration plaintiffs. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit
reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with
arbitration agreements to arbitrate and remanded to the District
Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court
ordered mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving
the matter.

On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the
District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of
the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision
denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers
located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery
products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September
13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider
whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from
the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center and
potentially other distribution centers.

On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a Petition for Certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court seeking to appeal certain
aspects of the 8th Circuit decision and on June 8, 2015, the
United States Supreme Court denied the Petition.

On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an
order that decided a number of matters including granting
plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain
Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to
add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiffs'
request to seek class certification for a group of New England
retailers. On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the
Magistrate Judge's order.

In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit the
denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff
and to seek class certification for a group of New England
retailers.


SUPERVALU INC: Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 5, 2015, that in August and
November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against the
Company relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer
network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the "Criminal
Intrusion"). The cases were centralized in the Federal District
Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In Re:
Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June
26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3,
2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the
plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their
burden of showing any compensable damages.


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces Beam's Suit Over Sherman Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beam's Industrial, Inc., Findlay Industries, Inc. and NM Holding
Co., LLC, individually, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc.,
Tokai Rika Co., Ltd., Tram, Inc., Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd., Toyoda
Gosei N.A. Corp. and TG Missouri Corp., Defendant, Case No. 5:16-
cv-10002-JCO-APP (E.D. Mich., January 1, 2016), seeks to obtain
injunctive relief and to recover damages, including treble damages
and costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting from
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1.

These companies manufacture, market or sell occupant safety
systems that were purchased in the United States. Plaintiff
alleges the Defendants artificially inflated prices in collusion
with each other.

Beam's Industries, Inc. is an Oklahoma corporation with principal
place of business located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Findlay Industries, Inc. is an Ohio corporation with principal
place of business located in Findlay, Ohio.

NM Holdings Company, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company
with principal place of business located in Fraser, MI.

These companies purchased occupant safety systems from the
Defendants who allegedly conspired to rig its prices.

Takata Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business located in Tokyo, Japan.

Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business located in Aichi, Japan. Its
subsidiary Toyoda Gosei North America Corp. is a Michigan
corporation with its principal place of business located in Troy,
Michigan.

TK Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Auburn Hills, Michigan. It is a subsidiary of
and wholly-owned and controlled by Takata Corporation.

Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business located in Aichi, Japan. Its subsidiary, TRAM,
Inc. is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of
business in Plymouth Hills, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      FINK AND ASSOCIATES LAW
      38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Tel: (248) 971-2500
      Email: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
             dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

             - and -

      Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
      Randall B. Weill, Esq.
      Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq.
      Michael S. Smith, Esq.
      PRETI FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
      One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
      Portland, ME 04112
      Tel: (207) 791-3000
      Email: ghansel@preti.com
             rweill@preti.com
             jmermin@preti.com
             msmith@preti.com

             - and -

      Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
      William E. Hoese, Esq.
      Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
      KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 238-1700
      Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com
             whoese@kohnswift.com
             dabrahams@kohnswift.com

             - and -

      Joseph M. Fischer, Esq.
      CARSON FISCHER PLC
      4111 Andover Road West, Second Floor
      West Bldg.
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
      Tel: (248) 644-4840
      Email: jfisher@carsonfisher.com

             - and -

      Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
      William H. London,Esq.
      Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Tel: (224) 632-4500
      Email: skanner@fklmlaw.com
             wlondon@fklmlaw.com
             mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

             - and -

      Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-0300
      Email: espector@srkw-law.com
             bcaldes@srkw-law.com
             jjagher@srkw-law.com
             jspector@srkw-law.com

             - and -

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD, LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Tel: (317) 636-6481
      Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
      GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
      35 East Seventh Street, Suite 600
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Tel: (513) 345-8291

             - and -

      Robert G. Eisler
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 622-7030

              - and -

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.
      570 Lexington Ave., 19th Floor
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Tel: (317) 636-6481

             - and -

      M. John Dominguez, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 204
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Tel: (561) 833-6575

             - and -

      Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 West
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Tel: (202) 408-4600

             - and -

      Lee Albert, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      77 Water Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10015
      Tel: (646) 722-4180

             - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
      Tel: (415) 777-2230

             - and -

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900

             - and -

      Lewis Goldfarb, Esq.
      MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
      1300 Mount Kemble Avenue
      P.O. Box 2075
      Morristown, NJ 07962-2075
      Tel: (973) 425-8689

             - and -

      Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
      MILLER LAW LLC
      115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel:(312) 332-3400

             - and -

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, FL 33326
      Tel: (954) 315-3454

             - and -

      Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
      THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 687-6611

             - and -

      Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Tel: (612) 338-4605

             - and -

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 687-1980

             - and -

      Daniel Hume, Esq.
      KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 371-6600

             - and -

      Steven D. Irwin, Esq.
      LEECH TISHMAN FUSCALDO & LAMPL, LLC
      525 William Penn Place, 30th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 261-1600

             - and -

      Steve Greenfogel, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      1521 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 564-5182

             - and -

      Garret Blanchfield, Esq.
      REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
      332 Minnesota St.
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Tel: (651) 287-2100

             - and -

      R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
      SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 217-6810

             - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC
      2000 Town Center, Suite 900
      Southfield, MI 48075
      Tel: (248) 355-0300


TOPPERS INT'L: "Burnell" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT, Tips
----------------------------------------------------------
Christie Burrell, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Toppers International, Inc., a
Domestic Profit Corporation, Darnell Lewis Gardner, individually,
and Sandra Gardner, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00125-CDL (M.D. Ga., Athens Division, December 30, 2015), seeks
overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, misappropriated tips,
misappropriated funds that were labeled as fees, fines or
otherwise, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs
and expenses of this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.

Toppers International, Inc. is an adult entertainment club located
at 1072 Mill Pointe, Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 with branch
located at 100N Jackson Street, Athens, GA 30601.

Burrell worked as an exotic dancer/entertainer for the Defendants.
She claims to have rendered in excess of forty hours per week and
did not receive the applicable minimum wage and overtime rate, and
that her only compensation was in the form of tips from club
patrons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (954) WORKERS
      Fax: (954) 327-3013
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


TOYODA GOSEI: "VITEC" Suit Alleges Auto Hose Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
VITEC, L.L.C., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd., Toyoda
Gosei North America Corp., TG Missouri Corp., Defendants, Case No.
4:16-cv-10001-LVP-MJH (E.D. Mich., December 30, 2015), seeks to
recover damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest under the Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. and Sec. 1 and 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15.

Defendants allegedly rigged prices of automotive hoses sold in the
United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels.

VITEC, L.L.C. is a Michigan limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Michigan. VITEC purchased
automotive hoses directly from one or more of the Defendants.

Toyoda Gosei North America Corp. is a Michigan corporation with
its principal place of business in Troy, Michigan. It sells
automotive hoses in the United States. It is owned by Toyoda Gosei
Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
business in Aichi, Japan.

TG Missouri Corp. sells automotive hoses in the United States
under the control and direction of Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      FINK AND ASSOCIATES LAW
      38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Tel: (248) 971-2500
      Email: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
             dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

             - and -

      Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
      Randall B. Weill, Esq.
      Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq.
      Michael S. Smith, Esq.
      PRETI FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
      One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
      Portland, ME 04112
      Tel: (207) 791-3000
      Email: ghansel@preti.com
             rweill@preti.com
             jmermin@preti.com
             msmith@preti.com

             - and -

      Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
      William E. Hoese, Esq.
      Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
      KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 238-1700
      Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com
             whoese@kohnswift.com
             dabrahams@kohnswift.com

             - and -

      Joseph M. Fischer, Esq.
      CARSON FISCHER PLC
      4111 Andover Road West, Second Floor
      West Bldg.
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
      Tel: (248) 644-4840
      Email: jfisher@carsonfisher.com

             - and -

      Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
      William H. London,Esq.
      Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Tel: (224) 632-4500
      Email: skanner@fklmlaw.com
             wlondon@fklmlaw.com
             mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

             - and -

      Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-0300
      Email: espector@srkw-law.com
             bcaldes@srkw-law.com
             jjagher@srkw-law.com
             jspector@srkw-law.com

             - and -

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD, LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Tel: (317) 636-6481
      Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Sees No Rare Circumstances to Stay Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
denied defendant's motion to stay in the case ALEXIOS KAFATOS,
Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-
03727-JST (N.D. Cal.)

Alexios Kafatos filed a putative class action suit against Uber
Technologies, Inc. (Uber), for alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Kafatos seeks to represent a class
"consisting of all persons within the United States who received
any unsolicited text messages and/or any other unsolicited text
messages from defendant without prior express consent."

Kafatos alleges that Uber texted him without prior express consent
through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system as
defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 227(a)(1), and that he and the
putative class members were harmed by Uber's text messages through
cellular telephone charges incurred or reduced cellular telephone
time and invasion of privacy.

Uber filed a motion to stay proceedings in light of two pending
appeals, and argued that both the D.C. Circuit's review of the
2015 FCC Omnibus Order of the TCPA in ACA International, et al. v.
Federal Communications Commission, No. 15-1211 and the Supreme
Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 135 S.Ct. 1892(2015),
could fundamentally alter the outcome of the Kafatos case.

Judge Tigar denied defendant's motion to stay in an order dated
January 8, 2016, a copy of which is available at
http://goo.gl/0EHD4Efrom Leagle.com.

Alexios Kafatos, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Michael Friedman
-- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Adrian R. Bacon --
abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Suren Naradha Weerasuriya --
at Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by James G. Snell
-- JSnell@perkinscoie.com -- Debra Rae Bernard --
DBernard@perkinscoie.com -- Nicola Carah Menaldo --
NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com -- Sarah J. Crooks --
SCrooks@perkinscoie.com -- at Perkins Coie LLP


UNITED BANK CARD: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Laurie Smith Camp granted Plaintiffs' motion
for final approval of a class action settlement in the case AMADOR
L. CORONA, Attorney at Law, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons; Plaintiff, v. UNITED BANK CARD,
INC., a corporation; Defendant, No. 8:12CV89, (D. Neb.)

Amador L. Corona filed a proposed class action lawsuit, Amador L.
Corona v. Transcendent One, Inc. and First National Bank of Omaha,
Case No. CI 12-867, in the District Court of Douglas County,
Nebraska, which was removed to the United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska and docketed as Case No. 8:12-cv-0089
and later amended on March 21, 2013, and captioned as Amador L.
Corona v. First National Bank of Omaha and United Bank Card, Inc.
(doing business as Harbortouch).

After extensive arm's-length negotiations, discovery and motion
practice, including a mediation, the Parties entered into a
National Class Action Settlement and Release dated July 21, 2015.
Plaintiff filed the Agreement, along with his Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Agreement
includes Harbortouch Payments, LLC (formerly United Bank Card,
Inc. d/b/a Harbortouch) (Harbortouch), First National Bank of
Omaha, and TSYS Merchant Solutions, LLC as Released Persons.

In his Final Judgment and Order dated February 1, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/5QU4WUfrom Leagle.com, Judge Camp granted final
certification of this settlement class: "All Persons within the
United States that are or were Harbortouch Merchants, and that
paid Harbortouch an IRS Processing Validation Fee and did not
receive a full refund, provided that the Person submitted a
Merchant Application to Harbortouch prior to February 1, 2009."

Of the approximately 21,658 Settlement Class Members, none
objected to the settlement.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are:

    "a. Persons that received a full refund of IRS Processing Fees
        paid;

     b. Persons that believed, before signing the Merchant
        Application, that First National Bank of Omaha or
        Harbortouch had a right under the contract to unilaterally
        amend or modify contractual terms that would permit the
        assessment of the IRS Processing Validation Fees, after
        providing 30 days' written notice;

     c. Harbortouch and its employees, officers, directors, and
        all persons with a controlling interest, and Harbortouch's
        legal representatives, predecessors, successors and
        assigns; and

     d. Persons that submitted a valid and timely request for
        exclusion from the Settlement Class."

The Court finds that the Lawsuit satisfies the applicable
prerequisites for class action treatment, for settlement purposes
only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, namely:

     a. The Settlement Class Members are so numerous that joinder
        of all of them in the Lawsuit is impracticable;

     b. There are questions of law and fact common to the
        Settlement Class Members which predominate over individual
        questions;

     c. The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of
        the Settlement Class Members;

     d. The Class Representative and Class Counsel have fairly and
        adequately represented and protected the interests of all
        of the Settlement Class Members; and

     e. Class treatment of these claims will be efficient and
        manageable, thereby achieving an appreciable measure of
        judicial economy, and a class action is superior to other
        available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of
        this controversy.

The Court also granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and
Costs and Incentive Award.  Class Counsel is awarded $215,000.00
in attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses.

An incentive award to Plaintiff is approved in the amount of
$5,000, to be paid in accordance with the Agreement. The Court
finds the incentive award to be fair and reasonable in light of
the time and effort Plaintiff devoted to the prosecution of this
litigation on behalf of the Settlement Class Members.

Christopher J. Roberts, Esq. -- freeconsult@chrisrobertsfirm.com
of Roberts Law Firm Gary R. Pearson, Esq. of Pearson Law Firm --
Joel J. Ewusiak, Esq. -- joel@ewusiaklaw.com of Ewusiak Law Firm
and Scott E. Schutzman, Esq. -- schutzy@msn.com of Law Offices of
Scott E. Schutzman

J. Scott Paul, Esq. -- spaul@mcgrathnorth.com -- and Michaela A.
Smith, Esq. -- msmith@mcgrathnorth.com -- of McGrath, North Law
Firm serve as counsel for Defendant United Bank Card, Inc.


UNITED SERVICES: 17 Attys to Attend Feb. 18 Legal Ethics Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hammersly, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that as many
as 17 lawyers -- plus their lawyers -- are scheduled to gather in
a federal courtroom on Feb. 18 for an unusual hearing involving
legal ethics, court-forum shopping and multimillion-dollar class-
action lawsuits.

To be determined: how deep a legal mess the lawyers find
themselves in.  And what U.S. Chief District Judge P.K. Holmes III
of Fort Smith will do about it.

Holmes issued a Dec. 21 order criticizing the conduct of
plaintiffs' and defense attorneys in dismissing and refiling a
class-action case, Adams v. United Services Automobile Association
(2:14-CV-2013).

Both sides agreed to dismiss the case from Judge Holmes' court.
The lawsuit was refiled a day later in Polk County with a
settlement agreement attached.

The Feb. 18, 10:00 a.m. hearing in U.S. District Court in Fort
Smith will give the attorneys a chance to "show cause" why Judge
Holmes shouldn't sanction them under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

A Rule 11 violation is "definitely a very serious thing to be
accused of," said Amanda Hurst, a visiting assistant professor at
the University of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville.  "It
questions your professionalism.  It gets to your ethical
reputation, which to a lawyer is invaluable."

The hearing also is unusual because a judge initiated it, said
Robert Steinbuch, a professor at the William H. Bowen School of
Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.  When Rule 11
complaints happen, they tend to come from the plaintiff or defense
sides. For a judge to originate it is rare, he said.

Many of the lawyers expected at the Feb. 18 hearing specialize in
representing plaintiffs in class actions.  The lawsuits seek to
encompass a larger group of people known as a "class" against a
company that may have harmed them.

One of the best-known attorneys is John Goodson of Keil & Goodson
in Texarkana, one of the state's most successful class-action
lawyers and a member of the University of Arkansas System board of
trustees.

Mr. Goodson and several Adams co-counsels are among the largest
donors to political campaigns for the Arkansas Supreme Court and
other state races.  And Mr. Goodson is married to Arkansas Supreme
Court Justice Courtney Goodson, who is running for chief justice
this year.

In their responses to Judge Holmes' order, John Goodson and other
plaintiffs' and defense lawyers say they acted ethically at all
times in the Adams case and that sanctions aren't warranted.

The practice of dismissing a class action in federal court and
settling in state court "had been approved by other federal
judges" in unrelated cases, according to a response filed by
plaintiffs' attorneys.

The attorneys also list at least six other similar cases that were
dismissed in federal court and settled in state court.

Attorneys for Mr. Goodson and the other lawyers in the Adams case,
including James Elrod, Vicki Bronson, retired federal Judge James
Moody Sr. and David Matthews, declined to talk about the pending
case or couldn't be reached for comment.

Judge Holmes did not respond to calls and emails for comment.

Judge Holmes' show-cause order came a week after an Arkansas
Business article on Dec. 14 reported that a Little Rock attorney,
Robert Trammell, had challenged a $5 million-plus settlement in
the Adams case in Polk County Circuit Court in Mena.  Judge
Holmes' order cited the magazine article in a footnote.

Adams v. USAA centered on whether the insurer illegally
depreciated the cost of labor in claims for a certain type of
property insurance known as "actual cash value," according to
federal court records.

Plaintiffs' lawyers originally filed the class action in Polk
County Circuit Court. Defense attorneys removed it to federal
court.  Lawyers dismissed the case last June 22 in Holmes' court,
then filed settlement documents in the same case the next day in
Polk County, court records show.

The settlement actually was dated June 16, Judge Holmes noted in
his show-cause order. It defined "Court" as "the Circuit Court of
Polk County, Arkansas."  But the case was still pending in federal
court on that date.

The lawyers' apparent aim in moving the case to state court,
Holmes' order continued, was "evading this court's review of their
negotiated settlement" in favor of a state court venue "that the
counsel believed would best suit their own interests" to the
detriment of class members.

The settlement approved in Polk Circuit Court included $3.4
million for class members and $1.85 million in attorneys' fees and
expenses for the plaintiffs' lawyers, court records show.

Judge Holmes earlier had approved a settlement in a similar case,
authorizing far less in attorneys' fees, about $332,000.

In their response to Judge Holmes' order, plaintiffs' lawyers said
"counsel never sought to evade judicial review of their class
action settlement."

They pointed to a different benefit in settling in Arkansas state
courts, "where objectors are required to comply with a more
stringent procedure as part of the settlement."

That benefit "was in the best interest of the class, to avoid
unwarranted delays in payment of settlement funds," according to
the plaintiffs' response.

Judge Holmes will decide whether to impose sanctions.  If he does
so, he will hold a second hearing to allow attorneys to respond,
according to court records.

Lawyers could appeal any decision to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in St. Louis, legal experts say.

Judge Holmes isn't allowed to levy fines in this case, according
to his order.  But he can look at "non-monetary sanctions."

Those could range widely, according to legal articles.

Reprimands, orders to undergo continuing education, referrals to
disciplinary authorities, warnings and suspension from the
practice of law are all possible, according to "Federal Practice
and Procedure, Wright & Miller," a legal reference.

Any sanction, according to Rule 11, is "limited to what is
sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable
conduct by others similarly situated."

Another possibility, said Ms. Hurst, is that the lawyers "could
just have to show up and be dressed down for what the court views
as inappropriate behavior."

Among the 17 lawyers named in the show-cause hearing records are
13 plaintiffs' lawyers from firms inside and outside Arkansas who
often work together filing class actions, court records show.

Besides John Goodson, other Arkansas plaintiffs' lawyers include
Matt Keil, a Goodson partner; W.H. Taylor, Timothy Myers, Stevan
Vowell and William Putman of Taylor Law Partners in Fayetteville;
Stephen Engstrom of Little Rock; and Tom Thompson and Casey
Castleberry of Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry in
Batesville.  The other plaintiffs' attorneys are connected with
law firms in Texas, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

Four more lawyers scheduled to appear at the Feb. 18 hearing are
defense attorneys for United Services Automobile Association and
related companies, court records show.  Based in Arkansas is Lyn
Pruitt of Little Rock's Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &
Woodyard.  The others are with a Connecticut law firm.


US VISION INC: Violates TCPA, Golden Law Offices Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Law Offices, P.C., individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. Vision, Inc., d/b/a
Meijer Optical, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00018 (W.D. Mich.,
January 11, 2016), seeks monetary and injunctive redress for the
illegal actions of the Defendant, in faxing or causing to be faxed
unsolicited advertisements that also fail to include the required
opt-out notice, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

U.S. Vision retails optical products. The Company offers optical
frames, eyewear, contact lenses, sunglasses, ready-made readers,
and accessories, as well as provides eye examination services. The
Company is based in Glendora, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest HWY Ste. 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701 5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warnerlawllc.com


USAA: Judge Holmes Gives Preview of Class Action Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Business reports that Chief U.S. District Judge P.K.
Holmes III has given a preview of how events will unfold in Fort
Smith on Feb. 18, in the show-cause hearing involving more than a
dozen attorneys in a controversial class-action forum-shopping
case.

First, Judge Holmes said, he "will have questions" for the
attorneys who are accused of abusing the federal court system in
connection with the case of Mark and Katherine Adams vs. United
Services Automobile Association.

The attorneys "will be given the opportunity to respond through
argument of their own attorneys, presentation of testimony, and/or
the admission of other evidence, as counsel and their attorneys
deem appropriate and advisable, and at the discretion of the
Court," Judge Holmes wrote in his notice.

If he decides that sanctions are warranted, he'll let them know
and give them a chance to respond at a second hearing before any
order imposing the sanctions is filed.

He also told them that his "inherent disciplinary authority"
allows him to impose sanctions.

If you recall, the class-action case had been in Judge Holmes'
court for more than a year, but was dismissed in June by both the
plaintiffs' attorneys and USAA's attorneys.  The case was refiled
the very next day in Polk County Circuit Court with a settlement
agreement attached.

"The clear inference," Judge Holmes wrote in December in his order
to show cause, "to be drawn from the fact that counsel filed a
stipulation of settlement in Polk County the day after dismissing
the case that had been pending with this Court for over 17 months
is that counsel wished to evade the federally-mandated review of
the class and the proposed settlement by this Court in
particular."

Texarkana attorney John Goodson, his law partner Matt Keil and
W.H. Taylor of the Fayetteville firm of Taylor Law Partners were
among 14 attorneys representing the Adamses and the proposed class
of plaintiffs in federal court. When the case was refiled in Polk
County, only Goodson, Keil and three attorneys from the Taylor
firm continued to represent the plaintiffs.  Mr. Goodson is the
husband of state Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson, who is
running for the position of chief justice in the March 1
nonpartisan judicial election.

Three Connecticut lawyers and Lyn Peeples Pruitt of the Mitchell
Williams firm in Little Rock represented USAA.

The attorneys on both sides have filed lengthy responses saying
that what they did was proper.

"USAA and its counsel respectfully submit that this brief and the
accompanying declarations should satisfy the Court's concerns and
obviate the need for a show cause hearing," attorney David R.
Matthews of the Rogers law firm of Matthews Campbell Rhoads
McClure & Thompson PA wrote in his January brief.

The hearing wasn't dismissed.  It will be at 10:00 a.m., Feb. 18,
in U.S. District Court in Fort Smith.


VIMO INC: Faces "Goldberg" Suit Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Todd Goldberg, on behalf of himself and on behalf of and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vimo, Inc. d/b/a
Getinsured.com, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00188 (N.D. Cal.,
January 12, 2016), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting
from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently and
knowingly contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Vimo is doing business as GetInsured.com, operates as a health
insurance broker. It offers dental, accident, and short-term
health insurance plans for consumers and business partners, as
well as provides a personalized recommendation engine for
consumers to pick the health insurance plan. The company also
offers state governments and employers with cloud based technology
solutions for public and private health insurance exchanges. The
company was founded in 2005 and is based in Mountain View,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228 6667
          Facsimile: (973) 629 1246
          E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com


VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: "Graiser" Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Gwin of the Northern District of Ohio
granted plaintiff's motion to remand but denied the motion for
attorney's fees as moot in the case ELLIOT GRAISER, Plaintiff, v.
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-CV-02306
(N.D. Ohio)

Elliot Graiser asserts claims on behalf a putative class of
customers who purchased "Buy One Get One Free" glasses at
Visionworks of America, Inc.  Plaintiff alleges that
representations associated with the buy one get one free offer
violated Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act.

On July 25, 2014, defendant removed the case under a theory of
diversity jurisdiction and alleged that it met the amount-in-
controversy requirement due to the cost in developing and
implementing new pricing strategies required to remedy plaintiff's
complaint as well as the statutory attorney's fees.

On January 2015, the federal district court remanded the case back
to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas due to plaintiff's
lack of Article III standing. In April 2015, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in the state court.

On November 11, 2015, defendant again removed the case to federal
court under the theory of federal question jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Defendant states that in
preparation for the October 29, 2015 mediation, defendant applied
its sales figures to the plaintiff's theory of damages and
determined, for the first time, that plaintiff's sought just over
$5 million in damages.

Plaintiff challenges whether defendant's removal under CAFA was
timely and moves to remand the case back to state court.

Judge Gwin granted plaintiff's motion to remand as the court does
not have jurisdiction, and denied plaintiff's motion for
attorney's fees as moot.

A copy of Judge Gwin's opinion and order dated January 11, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/kRkBZ9from Leagle.com.

Elliott Graiser, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Drew T. Legando, Esq.
     Jack Landskroner, Esq.
     Mark Schlachet, Esq.
     Thomas C. Merriman, Esq.
     Landskroner Grieco Merriman, LLC
     1360 W 9th St #200
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Telephone: 216-522-9000

Visionworks of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H.
Wallace -- dwallace@taftlaw.com -- Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr. --
mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- Ronald D. Holman, II --
rholman@taftlaw.com -- at Taft Stettinius & Hollister


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dutch Settlement Foundation to Resolve Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The disclosure that Volkswagen installed devices to circumvent
mandatory emissions regulations for its diesel engines has caused
the Company's shareholders and bondholders to suffer billions of
euros in losses.  The Volkswagen Investor Settlement Foundation
("the Foundation") provides a non-litigation and no cost vehicle
for Volkswagen investors worldwide to recover damages incurred on
Volkswagen securities pursuant to the Dutch Collective Settlement
Act.

The Dutch Collective Settlement Act enables parties to resolve
international disputes by allowing a Dutch foundation representing
investors worldwide and the company to jointly petition the
Amsterdam Court of Appeals to approve a settlement providing for
payment to investors and a release of claims against the company.
Investors who are not satisfied with the settlement can opt out
and are not bound.  By joining the Volkswagen Investor Settlement
Foundation as a participant now, investors protect their interests
and demonstrate their support for settlement negotiations between
the Foundation and VW, without any costs, obligations or risks.

Background on the Foundation

On January 5, 2016, the Honorable Charles R. Breyer of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, the
federal judge presiding over the litigation involving consumer and
securities actions across the United States arising out of the
emissions cheating scandal, appointed the Foundation's US legal
counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") as
sole Lead Counsel in the class action involving Volkswagen's ADRs.
Shortly thereafter, BLB&G worked with the former President of the
Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeals, the
Honorable Huub Willems, to establish the Volkswagen Investor
Settlement Foundation to use the Dutch Collective Settlement Act
(the "Act") to recover investor losses on Volkswagen securities
that were publicly traded outside the United States.

The Dutch Collective Settlement Act creates a unique procedural
device, similar to a US class action settlement, to resolve mass
claims and group litigation.  The Act has been successfully used
to settle numerous cases against Dutch companies such as Royal
Dutch Shell.  In the groundbreaking effort led by BLB&G to recover
losses sustained by investors in Swiss reinsurance group
SCOR/Converium decision, the Amsterdam Court of Appeals held that
the Act can also be applied to resolve securities claims of non-
Dutch investors against a non-Dutch company.  Pursuant to various
European treaties, the Dutch court's SCOR/Converium decision-and
any similar decision in the VW matter-is enforceable throughout
the European Union and various other European nations.

Procedurally, the Dutch Collective Settlement Act allows a
defendant and a foundation, led by a Board and supported by
representatives of the broader investor class, to jointly petition
the Amsterdam Court of Appeals for approval of a settlement.
After notice to all investors, the Court will review the merits of
the proposed settlement and, if approved, institute a settlement
binding on all investors who do not exercise their rights to opt-
out of the settlement. Investors who do not opt out receive
payment and the defendant receives a release of claims. Investors
who have opted out remain free to pursue their individual claims.

The Volkswagen Investor Settlement Foundation represents investors
who purchased or held VW ordinary shares, preference shares, bonds
or other publicly traded securities during the period April 23,
2008 to January 4, 2016 and who suffered losses on those
securities due to the emissions scandal.  The Foundation is
governed by the Dutch claimcode and led by a very strong Board,
consisting of the Honorable Huub Willems, Prof. dr. Jean M.G.
Frijns (former chief investment officer of the ABP pension fund
and former Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Delta Lloyd),
Prof. dr. mr. Frans van der Wel (part-time member of the
Enterprise Chamber of the Amsterdam Court of Appeals and former
chair of the Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants), and
Rob Okhuijsen (co-author of the Dutch governance code for claim
foundations).  The Supervisory Board consists of Ben Knppe
(Court-appointed Trustee in Bankruptcy for DSB Bank N.V. and
former Chief Exective Officer of Dexia Bank Nederland), Hans de
Munnik (part-time member of the Enterprise Chamber of the
Amsterdam Court of Appeals and former chair of the Dutch
Accounting Standards Board), and Prof. dr. Astrid Stadler
(professor of law at Konstanz University in Germany and former
professor of comparative mass litigation at Erasmus University in
the Netherlands).  The Foundation has retained BLB&G as US Counsel
and the international law firm of Allen & Overy LLP as Dutch and
German Counsel.

The Foundation is committed and focused on securing a favorable
settlement with VW and obtaining Court approval for settlements
covering all publicly traded VW securities, including equity and
fixed income securities.  The Foundation recommends that
institutional investors who purchased or held VW securities during
the period April 23, 2008 to January 4, 2016 join the Foundation
by signing a participation agreement.  Becoming a participant in
the Foundation is non-exclusive and entails absolutely no cost to
investors.  Further, investors who join the Foundation will not be
pursuing any formal litigation or be exposed to the potential
burdens associated with formal litigation.


VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Wants "Ford" Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
VOXX International Corporation is seeking dismissal of a class
action lawsuit filed by Brian Ford in New York, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
November 30, 2015.

"On July 8, 2014, a purported class action suit, Brian Ford v.
VOXX International Corporation et. al., was filed against us and
two of our present executive officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York," the Company said.

"On July 16, 2015, the judge approved the designation of the lead
plaintiffs and counsel for the plaintiffs.  On September 28, 2015,
the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which alleges the same
claims as the original complaint (that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements
which artificially inflated the price of our stock and that
purchasers of our stock during the relevant period were damaged
when the stock price later declined) under Sections 10(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act but expands the class period
by five months, from January 9, 2013 through May 14, 2014."

"According to the allegations contained in the amended complaint,
the defendants knew or should have known, by virtue of their roles
and positions, that their statements were false and misleading and
said defendants were purportedly motivated because their conduct
enabled Company insiders to sell VOXX stock at inflated prices.

"We believe that we have meritorious legal positions and defenses
and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in this
matter. On November 25, 2015, the Defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff has
60 days to file its opposition papers to Defendants' motion."


WARE STATE PRISON: Inmates' Motion to Certify Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate R. Stan Baker denied Plaintiffs' motions to certify
class and leave to amend to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in
the captioned case DARNELL NOLLEY; MARK DAVIS; GREGORY ASHLEY; and
HORACE DURDEN, Plaintiffs, v. HOMER BRYSON; THOMAS GRAMIAK; EDWINA
JOHNSON; JUANDA CRAWFORD; and JANE DOE, Food Service Director,
Ware State Prison, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-96, (S.D.
Ga.)

Plaintiffs have attempted to bring this suit on behalf of
themselves, as well as on behalf of all persons similarly
situated. They state they are incarcerated in the Tier II Housing
Unit at Ware State Prison. Plaintiffs allege that in the Tier II
Unit, they have been deprived of the minimal civilized measures of
life's necessities in violation of the Eighth Amendment. They seek
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

Since the initiation of this action, Plaintiffs have filed various
pleadings, sometimes individually and at other times in tandem.
For instance, Plaintiff Darrell Nolley has filed a motion
requesting to proceed in forma pauperis, and a Motion to Appoint
Counsel, while Plaintiffs have filed a collective Motion for Class
Certification.

In his Order and Report and Recommendation dated February 2, 2016
available at http://is.gd/sNI99Sfrom Leagle.com, Judge Baker
denied Plaintiffs' motions to certify and leave to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis. The Court granted Plaintiff Mark Davis'
Motion to Amend the Complaint, and deems the Complaint amended
with the allegations contained in Plaintiff Davis' pleading.

Judge Baker recommends that Plaintiffs' motion to appoint counsel
and Plaintiff Nolley's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis be dismissed as moot. The Court orders any party seeking
to object to this Report and Recommendation to file specific
written objections within 14 days of the date on which this Report
and Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that the
Magistrate Judge failed to address any contention raised in the
Complaint must also be included. Failure to do so will bar any
later challenge or review of the factual findings or legal
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. A copy of the objections must
be served upon all other parties to the action.

The Inmates appeared pro se.


WAUSAU PAPER: MOU Reached in Class Suit Related to SCA Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wausau Paper Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2016, that a
memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of certain
litigation relating to the previously announced Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of October 12, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"),
has been reached among Wausau Paper Corp., a Wisconsin corporation
("Wausau"), SCA Americas, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("SCA
Americas"), and Salmon Acquisition, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of SCA Americas ("Merger Sub"),
providing for the merger (the "Merger") of Merger Sub with and
into Wausau.

Two putative class action complaints were filed in the Circuit
Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin on November 4, 2015, naming
various combinations of Wausau, Wausau's board of directors, SCA
Americas, Merger Sub, and Starboard Value LP ("Starboard") as
defendants. On November 16, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the
Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin naming Wausau,
Wausau's board of directors, SCA Americas, Merger Sub, and
Starboard as defendants. These three lawsuits, MSS 12-09 Trust v.
Wausau Paper Corp., et al., Case No. 15-CV-009090 (Nov. 4 2015)
("MSS Trust Action"), Rosenberg, II v. Wausau Paper Corp., et al.,
Case No. 15-CV-009091 (Nov. 4, 2015) ("Rosenberg Action"), and
Nieuwenhuis v. Wausau Paper Corp., et. al., Case No. 15-CV-009176
(Nov. 16, 2015) ("Nieuwenhuis Action") (collectively, the
"Actions"), include substantially similar allegations that
Wausau's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger by agreeing to the proposed acquisition
of Wausau by SCA Americas and Merger Sub and failing to obtain the
highest value reasonably available for the shareholders of Wausau.
The Actions also allege that Wausau, SCA Americas, Merger Sub, and
Starboard have aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary breaches.

On November 13, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the
Rosenberg Action ("Amended Complaint"), which alleges similar
claims that members of the Wausau board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties and that Wausau, SCA Americas, Merger Sub,
and Starboard have aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary
breaches. The Amended Complaint also asserts additional claims
that members of the Wausau board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties by purportedly misstating and omitting material
information from the Definitive Proxy Statement as filed initially
on November 10, 2015. On November 25, 2015, the court consolidated
the Actions under the caption:  In re Wausau Paper Corp.
Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 15-CV-009090 (the
"Consolidated Action"), designated the Amended Complaint as the
operative complaint in the Consolidated Action, and appointed the
law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as lead counsel and the law firm
of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as liaison counsel. On December 1, 2015,
plaintiff filed a motion for expedited discovery, which has yet to
be decided by the court. On December 29, 2015, plaintiff filed a
motion for temporary injunction, which has yet to be decided by
the court.

On January 12, 2016, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs providing for the
settlement of all claims in the Consolidated Action. Under the
MOU, and subject to court approval and definitive documentation,
the plaintiff and the putative class settle and release, against
the named defendants certain related parties, all claims in the
Consolidated Action and any pleadings or briefs filed in the same
and any potential claim related to (i) the matters alleged in any
pleadings or briefs filed in the Consolidated Action; (ii) the
Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby,
including the Merger; (iii) the Definitive Proxy Statement and any
amendments, supplements, or modifications to any of the foregoing,
and any other public disclosures made in connection with or
regarding the Merger; (iv) the statutory or fiduciary obligations
(including any disclosure obligations) of any of the defendants or
certain related parties in connection with the Merger Agreement,
the Merger, the Definitive Proxy Statement or any amendments,
supplements, or modifications to any of the foregoing, and any
other public disclosures made in connection with or regarding the
Merger; (v) the negotiations in connection with the Merger
Agreement and Merger; and (vi) any and all conduct by any of the
defendants and certain related parties arising out of or relating
in any way to the negotiation or execution of the MOU and any
subsequent stipulation.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the special meeting
of the shareholders of Wausau, which was scheduled to be held on
January 20, 2016, or the amount of the consideration to be paid to
Wausau's shareholders in connection with the Merger. While Wausau
and the other defendants believe that no supplemental disclosure
is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid the risk of
the putative stockholder class actions delaying or adversely
affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such
actions, Wausau and the other defendants have agreed, pursuant to
the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the proposed Merger. The MOU contemplates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to Wausau's
stockholders.

In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Circuit Court
of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with
the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel
will file a petition in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid
by Wausau or its successor. The settlement, including the payment
by Wausau or any successor thereto of any such attorneys' fees, is
also contingent upon, among other things, the Merger becoming
effective under Wisconsin law. There can be no assurance that the
Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin will approve the
settlement contemplated by the MOU. In the event that the
settlement is not approved and such conditions are not satisfied,
the defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the
allegations in the Consolidated Action, which the defendants
believe are without merit.


WELLTEC INC: "Rychorcewicz" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Korey Rychorcewicz, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Welltec, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00002 (W.D. Tex., Houston Division,
January 2, 2016), seeks damages for all unpaid overtime
compensation, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Welltec, Inc. is located at 22440 Merchants Way, Katy, Texas
77449.  The Company provides oil well maintenance and services.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Field Engineer,
rigging oilfield equipment and operating oilfield machinery. He
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      Alecia D. Best, Esq.
      9801 Westheimer Rd., Suite 302
      Houston, TX 77042
      Tel: (713) 223-8855
      Fax: (713) 623-6399


WHIRLPOOL: Settles Class Action Over Defective Dishwasher
---------------------------------------------------------
John Hult, writing for Argus Leader, reports that several models
of dishwasher manufactured by Whirlpool between 2000 and 2006 were
the target of a class-action lawsuit by a Massachusetts man on
behalf of himself and anyone else who might have a defective
product.  The appliances have electronic control boards that put
them at risk of overheating or even starting fires, according to
the lawsuit.  Whirlpool agreed to settle, denying wrongdoing but
offering rebates of 10 to 30 percent to consumers who buy a new
dishwasher.  Claimants have 120 days from the time a fire occurs
to report it to the settlement administrator, and all claims must
be made by February of 2018 to be eligible.


WWRD US: Recalls Peter Rabbit Baby Rattles Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
WWRD U.S. LLC, of Wall, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of
about 670 Wedgwood Peter Rabbit decorative baby rattles in the
U.S. (in addition 24 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The ball bearings inside each side of the decorative rattle can be
released, posing a choking hazard to young children.

This recall involves all Wedgwood Peter Rabbit decorative baby
rattles. The silver-plated giftware is shaped like a baby rattle,
but is intended to be used as decoration only. It measures about 4
1/2 inches long and 2 inches wide.  A Peter Rabbit figure and "hop
hop hop" underneath are embossed on one end cap and "hop little
rabbit" over the Peter Rabbit figure is embossed on the other end
cap.

The firm has received two reports of ball bearings releasing from
the decorative giftware baby rattle. No injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/cOIls9

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Bloomingdales, Macy's, and WWRD Outlets and other department
stores nationwide and online at www.amazon.com and
www.wedgwood.com from April 2015 through December 2015 for between
$75 and $95.

Consumers should immediately stop using the decorative rattles and
take them away from young children and contact WWRD for a full
refund.


* Supreme Court Set to Tackle 6 Pending Cases This Year
-------------------------------------------------------
Rich Barbieri, writing for CNNMoney, reports that the death of
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has jarred Washington.  It
has also left the court with one fewer member as it works through
dozens of cases on its plate.

Some of the most important cases touch on hot-button social and
political issues: abortion, immigration, Obamacare and religion,
and voting rights.

But the pending docket, set to be wrapped up by the end of June,
includes a number of cases of interest to businesses, workers and
investors.

Puerto Rico's financial crisis

Can Puerto Rico enact laws that allow it to restructure its debt?
Puerto Rico must shed some of the tens of billions of dollars it
owes investors and other creditors. But federal bankruptcy court
is off limits.

Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust asks whether
Puerto Rico had the right to pass a law that would allow its
public utilities to restructure their debt.  The Supreme Court is
set to hear arguments on March 22.

School teachers and unions

Can public sector unions charge non-members fees for collective
bargaining?

One of the issues in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association
involves public school teachers who are not in the union but still
had to pay dues to cover the costs of collective bargaining.

The case was brought by teachers who say that being forced, by
state law, to pay dues violates their First Amendment rights. The
justices heard arguments in January.

First Amendment and government workers

Does the First Amendment protect a government worker who was
demoted because his boss thought he supported a political
candidate?

Heffernan v. City of Paterson was brought by a police officer in
Paterson, New Jersey, who was demoted when his supervisor believed
-- incorrectly -- that he was campaigning on behalf of a mayoral
candidate.

The case presents the kind of issue lawyers love: The officer was
demoted not for his actual political views, but because of a
perception about his views.  Does the First Amendment still
protect the officer? The Supreme Court heard arguments in January.

Class action against Microsoft . . .

Can Microsoft beat back an attempted class action suit that claims
the Xbox 360 console scratched video game discs?

Corporate America hates class actions because a group of
plaintiffs usually has more power to win a big settlement than
does a single plaintiff. A corporate defendant can often
effectively win a case by convincing a judge to not "certify" it
as a class action.

The question in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker involves whether the
plaintiffs could appeal a ruling that denied them class action
certification.  The justices took the Microsoft case in January;
arguments have not been scheduled.

. . . And another class action case

Can plaintiffs use statistical models based on a sample of
plaintiffs to establish that a bigger group of people has been
harmed?

This case touches on one of the biggest clashes over class
actions: Do they allow people with similar legal complaints to get
the justice they deserve, or do they make it too easy for
plaintiffs to mount a case?

The case before the Supreme Court is Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo.
Hourly workers at a Tyson Foods meat processing plant said they
were not adequately paid for the time they spent walking to their
work stations and changing into protective gear.

The plaintiffs used some actual time sheets and "representative"
evidence as proof of their financial damages. Tyson argued there
were too many differences among the workers to constitute a true
class.  The Supreme Court heard arguments in November.

Legal 'standing' to bring lawsuits

How much 'harm' must a plaintiff show to bring a lawsuit in the
first place?

It's a basic rule that you can't get through the courthouse door
if you can't show you have been harmed in a concrete way.  That's
one of the factors that gives someone "standing" to bring a suit
in federal court.

In Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, the Supreme Court is mulling whether a
"bare" violation of a federal law can be enough to let someone sue
-- even without showing tangible harm.

The case was brought by a man who says a credit agency was
reporting inaccurate information about him, in violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.  It was argued before the Supreme Court
in November.


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *